How about this half EP cost only apply to three or four defense factor escorts?

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 12:32 am: Edit

I dunno, I don't think any change is needed.

If people choose to use light escorts as inside escorts, then their carrier groups will be weaker. The Lyrans benefit from using DWE, but they could be using a CWE. Most 5 pt frigates or destroyers would probably be used as outside escorts. Heck, if 5 pt frigates don't count, the Feds lose any benefit from this rule at all.

The Fed DE is the most logical "inside" escort - but once the NAC and bigger escorts are available, the DE becomes an outside escort.

So I don't think the rule needs any review. 0.5 ep for light escorts, 1 ep for heavy escorts. Nice and simple. Let Steve decide on the Kzinti DDE.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 12:41 am: Edit

The main purpose of this rule change (if I'm not mistaking) is to provide more motivation to actually build the escorts that are not being built.

As 5 and 6 point escorts DO get built, in my opinion, they don't 'need' a cheaper cost. That goes for F5Es and Fed FFEs and so on.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 04:52 am: Edit

RBE:

One reason is that the Fed DW and the Klingon F5L as ad hocs (3-6/0-3) at 4 EP better protect carriers than an Fed FFE or F5E (4-5/2-3) at the same 4 EP. These ad hocs also yield a higher salvage value.

The disturbing trend in away from using light escorts at all is due to the elimination of the 3Rs (CEDS retrograde, repair, and replacements) and the fact that it now makes little sense to build them from a VALUE point if ALL light escort ad hocs are now the better choice over the standard warship version while preserving valuable conversion capacity.

Ponder these also...

Why would the Feds spend 20 EP on 4xDWA when they can buy 5xDW and have a more versatile force, or...

12 EPs buys 3xFFE @ 4 EP each when the same EPs buy ad hocs 4xFF @ 3 EP?

Carrier groups are now better served taking more standard warships to be used as light ad hocs because they can flex to either mission.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 05:01 am: Edit

Those are valid points.

Why one might build Fed FFEs and other 5-6 pt escorts also needs to take in mind that you get more offensive compot (on the line) if you do that (though fewer SEs and less total compot in the hex).

Even with that in mind, you have convinced me that 5 and 6 point escorts also should have the 1/2 point cost.

Thank you for pointing that out.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 05:31 am: Edit

I am in agreement with Kevin that no change is needed. The issue of which escort is "inner" or "outer" wasn't really part of the reasoning. The reasoning is based on the fact that with the magic of CEDS gone, escorts are basically standard warships that do one job better than other ships, but their other job worse than other ships. This means that the decision to spend the extra money to build them is no longer as clear as it was before CEDS was eliminated.

Ship	Standard ComPot	Escort ComPot	Average ComPot	Cost	Cost/ComPot Ratio
Kzinti FF	4	1	2.5	2.5	1.0
Kzinti EFF	1	2	1.5	3.5	2.3
Klingon E4	4	1	2.5	2.5	1.0
Klingon E4A	1	2	1.5	3.5	2.3
Hydran CU	4	1	2.5	2.5	1.0
Hydran AH	2	3	2.5	3.5	1.4
Kzinti FFK	5	2	3.5	3	0.9
Kzinti FKE	3	4	3.5	4	1.1
Klingon F5	5	2	3.5	3	0.9
Klingon F5E	3	4	3.5	4	1.1
Federation FF	5	2	3.5	3	0.9
Federation FFE	3	4	3.5	4	1.1
Federation DD	6	3	4.5	6	1.3
Federation DE	4	5	4.5	7	1.6
Kzinti CL	6	3	4.5	6	1.3
Kzinti CLE	3	4	3.5	7	2.0
Kzinti CM	7	3	5	5	1.0
Kzinti MEC	5	6	5.5	6	1.1
Klingon D5	7	3	5	5	1.0
Klingon AD5	5	6	5.5	6	1.1
Federation CL	6	3	4.5	6	1.3
Federation ECL	3	4	3.5	7	2.0
Federation NCL	7	3	5	5	1.0
Federation NEC	3	4	3.5	6	1.7
Federation NAC	4	5	4.5	6	1.3

I prepared this spreadsheet for Chuck at Origins. I take the standard warship ComPot, the escort Compot and average them as each warship is evaluated in both roles. The Cost/ComPot ratio is how many EPs you are paying for average ComPot. So a higher ratio means you are paying more for ComPot.

It's important to note that escorts of all sizes in this table have a worse Cost/ComPot ratio than their equivalent hulls, even the heavy ones. However, the ratio is worse in the case of the light escorts.

I'm not personally in favor of an arbitrary cut-off point of ComPot to make certain light escorts more expensive due to a certain ComPot. Even with the .5 cost for light escorts, they would still have a cost/ComPot ratio slightly worse than standard warships.

It's much easier to just say that light escorts cost .5 EPs, and I think the reduced costs are justified pretty much across the board.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 05:40 am: Edit

And yes, the Federation ECL, NEC and Kzinti CLE are all head scratching moments when one must question what the empires were thinking!

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 10:02 am: Edit

Pete, can you post one with the adjusted escort cost of 0.5 for the light escorts?

I'm curious to see how much closer to the standard ships the cost adjustment makes to the light escorts.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 10:23 am: Edit

The Federation ECL used to be 4-6/2-4 making it the cheapest ship to repair in F&E. Couple that with it being allowed to be an outer escort and let the DE and DWA both sit inside of it made it a pretty good ship. In fact I have in the past made it a point to convert as many CL's into ECL's as possible. But with the factors changed to 4-6/2-3 its not nearly so good.

Kzinti CLE is just a matter of not having the MEC available and wanting hvy escorts!

Fed NEC... that is called somebodies uncle got the contract!

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 10:27 am: Edit

Michael wrote:
>>In fact I have in the past made it a point to convert as many CL's into ECL's as possible. But with the factors changed to 4-6/2-3 its not nearly so good.>>

The factors for the ECL are still listed as 4-6/2-4 in the back of the 2K10 rulebook.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 10:29 am: Edit

I would like to clarify. I was not suggesting that heretofore heavy escorts like the Kzinti DDE get changed to light but that when the SITS get changed that the COST to build/convert be changed to .5.

It goes like this, the cost should reflect how much effort in time and materials to takes to make an escort. If we say a light escort costs .5 then it makes sense to see things thusly.

The Kzinti DDE is a heavy escort only because it was used in this role by Kzinti Naval doctrine. If such a vessel were in other navies it would be treated as light (in fact if it were captured by another empire it would be a light escort). The cost should reflect the effort it takes not the doctrinal use of the ship. So therefore it makes sense its SITS cost surcharge should be .5 even though its treated as heavy for usage.

Of course its not a problem if it is not changed. It just sort of makes logical sense to change this one and any other heavy escorts that are heavy only because of doctrine.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 10:31 am: Edit

Peter wrote:
>>The factors for the ECL are still listed as 4-6/2-4 in the back of the 2K10 rulebook.>>

Indeed but its been officially changed unfortunately.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 10:36 am: Edit

Michael wrote:
>> The cost should reflect the effort it takes not the doctrinal use of the ship. So therefore it makes sense its SITS cost surcharge should be .5 even though its treated as heavy for usage.>>

Well, except that if you start parsing things like this, you can end up in an endless cycle of parsing things out.

"Light Escorts cost .5 to sub or convert." is a much cleaner, simpler, neater solution than creating a whole list (even if the list is short) of exceptions. As it stands, Light Escorts are all nicely readily labeled as Light Escorts, and with the change likely taking time to make it to print, it is a lot easier to remember and use:

"Light Escorts cost .5 to sub or convert."

than it is to remember and use:

"Light Escorts cost .5 to sub or convert. Except for the ones that don't. And the ones that are listed as heavy escorts but only cost .5 to sub or convert also..."

I mean, I get that folks really apparently like as much possible granularity injected into this large scale game, but here is an instance where there is a nice, clean, neat solution to what is actually a problem. Can we just leave it nice, clean, and neat?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 10:43 am: Edit

Chuck, unintended consequence of the change: light escorts only use .5 of the 3EP/3 Conversions slot of a non capital starbase. The conversion of a light escort should still use 1 of the 3 conversion spaces.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 10:45 am: Edit

Thomas wrote:
>> The conversion of a light escort should still use 1 of the 3 conversion spaces.>>

Does it really matter if you can convert 6 light escorts at once?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 11:04 am: Edit

Actually it does. The ability to convert 6 escorts as opposed to 3 at a given location could be unbalancing.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 11:56 am: Edit

Turtle:

Unbalancing? How? If all players can do this then how is it unbalancing?

Look, when we had CEDS replacements we essentially had unlimited conversion capacity since the replacement conversions could be counted against ANY existing conversion facility and sent anywhere there was a missing escort. The CEDS rule was changed not because it was unbalanced but because it defied rationality when compared to the whole of the F&E game system. However, if the map-wide CEDS replacement system was balanced back then (and back then we all agreed it was), how now can anyone now say 0.5 EP conversions at one fixed facility are any less so?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 12:16 pm: Edit

Thomas wrote:
>>Actually it does. The ability to convert 6 escorts as opposed to 3 at a given location could be unbalancing.>>

I'm not really seeing how. Currently, light escorts are regularly and reliably ignored, as ad-hoc light escorts are almost as good (if not occasionally better) and cheaper. That they can now be converted for .5 isn't suddenly going to result in everyone making 6 of them per starbase every turn. As ad-hoc escorts are still almost as good and still cheaper. It seems likely that this change will have the following effect:

-Good light escorts (Fed DDE anf FFE, Klingon F5E, Lyran DWE, etc) will still get made as often as they used to be, probably not much more than they were before, as the numbers in which they were made were governed generally by how many you could realistically use. This will result in a savings of money, but not likely a huge increase in production.

-Weak light escorts (Kzinti EF, Klingon E4A, Hydran AH) that were being totally ignored in the name of ad-hocs will see extra production, but not more than needed, and likely not significantly more than now. As they are still weak, they still have a high mortality rate, and still will be likely often replaced with ad-hocs. But some will get made for important fights where you want the extra compot and they aren't likely to get shot down.

I can't imagine many situations where someone will suddenly convert 6 light escorts at a single SB, just 'cause they can, when it would make a difference (as you could already freely sub escorts--if the Feds wanted to build 12xFFEs in a single turn, they already could; if the Kzinti wanted to make 8xEF, they already *had* that capability). And how often is it going to be actually significant that a given SB can convert a CC/CV/Whatever for 2 points and then also convert 2 light escorts? Enough to justify a specific rules exception? Seems unlikely.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 12:25 pm: Edit

Starbases are limited to three conversions total. Had to look that up recently, but I found it somewhere. So it is not a factor.

It will be nice to convert a medium carrier and two (light) escorts at a starbase though.

Will the SKE still be 1.5 to convert to an escort?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Richard wrote:
>>Starbases are limited to three conversions total. Had to look that up recently, but I found it somewhere. So it is not a factor.>>

Ah, excellent. I love when problems solve themselves :-)

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 01:25 pm: Edit

2010 Rule

---

Quote:

(433.19) MULTIPLE CONVERSIONS: A given starbase may perform multiple conversions on a single turn as long as the total cost is within the limit of three Economic Points. A “major” conversion (at the capital starbase) can make up to three conversions so long as the total cost is less than five Economic Points

---

---

Quote:

(450.5) FLEXIBLE CONVERSIONS
The rules on conversions in basic F&E (433.0) provide that each Starbase can make one 3-point conversion while the capital can make one (and, for a price, a second) larger conversion. -Sandra Calacito
(450.51) Under this flexible conversion rule, a starbase or "Minor conversion facility" (450.12) can make one, two, or three conversions each turn, so long as the total cost of all of those conversions is three EPs or less.
(450.52) The capital starbase (433.12) or "major conversion facility" (450.12) can make two or three conversions in a single turn so long as the total cost of all of those conversions is five EPs or less. (A single conversion is not limited in size.)

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 01:48 pm: Edit

433.19 says you do UP TO three conversions (at the major conversion starbase) as long as the total cost is less than five economic points.

It should probably say less than or equal to 5 eco points and as up til now there were no conversions that cost less than 1, it didn't need to clarify for the minor conversion.

It is, of course, nonsensical to allow a minor conversion only capable SB to do more than three conversions when by 433.19 a major conversion capable SB cannot.

That's why I like playing against people like Peter Bakija or Ted Fay, they'd never take something like this and try to say it means you can do more than three conversions. :-)

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Richard, you need to read (433.19) carefully. It doesn't put a limit on conversions except to say up to three economic points. No where does it limit the number of conversions in any other way. The only limit of 3 is at the capital for major conversion. and you could make a CVA for 4, and 2 0.5 escorts as well.

(450.5) does limit the number of conversions.

However, if you are not playing with Planetary Ops there is no limit of 3 conversions.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Thomas wrote:
>>However, if you are not playing with Planetary Ops there is no limit of 3 conversions.>>

Well, ok. In some versions of the rules, you are limited to a maximum of 3 conversions per SB. But even when you *aren't*, how often is it going to matter?

As noted, you can already produce as many light escorts as you have production of light escort hulls. That was never limited. You could alreadyt convert 3x light escorts per SB. I can't for the life of me see how being able to make 6 light escorts per SB would ever be an actual problematic issue--there is already no limit on escort production, and a practical limit of "how much money do I have and how many escorts do I need?".

I'm unconvinced that there will ever be a situation where someone being able to convert 6 light escorts at a single SB would be a problem.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 02:04 pm: Edit

"A “major” conversion (at the capital starbase) can make up to three conversions so long as the total cost is less than five Economic Points..."

This does in fact limit the number of conversions in another way. I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

In any case, with the limit on the number of conversions at a major conversion capable SB, and without it explicitly saying otherwise for other SBs, I don't think it's reasonable to do more than three conversions at a starbase without first going to Q&A and verifying it, and I am 100% sure which way that Q&A should go.