|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, June 20, 2013 - 05:42 pm: Edit|
Thank you for clarifying to me what is going on in 607.543. I should have seen that, having just done a split retreat in 4PW vs Peter. o_O
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, June 20, 2013 - 06:55 pm: Edit|
(607.571) "cannot used for DB" should probably be "cannot be used for DB"
(607.573) "battle force ship or units used" should probably be "battle force ships or units used"
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, June 21, 2013 - 12:29 pm: Edit|
Upon further reflection, are you saying that 607.543 means that coalition units can not do a joint retreat, but may only split retreat?
Because as the rules currently go, one empire cannot use the supply points of an other empire for it's retreat priority decisions (barring expeditionary or homeless ships).
If this is the case, perhaps 607.543 should be changed to state that 'allied retreat is barred' in an explicit manner.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, June 21, 2013 - 12:45 pm: Edit|
The rule is okay. It just means that an empire must use their supply points for their retreat priority calculations. Joint retreat is possible but only IF the retreat priorities work out that way for both allied empires.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, June 21, 2013 - 01:02 pm: Edit|
Nod. It's just a bit confusing too me, as the way retreat normally works an empire must use their supply points for their retreat priority calculations EXCEPT when conducting a joint retreat. I mean, I'm pretty good at reading rules, usually, but it took some doing to really see it that way and even then I wasn't 100% sure.
Certainly I can see an opponent who doesn't understand the normal retreat rules very well arguing over it, which I would wish to minimize.
|By John Wong (Johnwong) on Friday, June 21, 2013 - 08:48 pm: Edit|
Played 4 PW at Origins. The following items came up on the scenario. We didn't get past turn 5 as there was a fire on wednesday night and our Klingon commander disappeared after that.
Ships Killed and crippled
Hydran: 16 killed including 2LC, 5RN all directed damage.
Kzinti: 27 killed 21xFF alone. mostly self killed.
Klingon: 25 killed mostly self killed but 3D7 and D7C directed
Lyran: 9 killed with 3 CA directed but many ships crippled in battle 50+
1. Should be noted that the Alliance starts the game on their turn.
Lyran and Klingons have already do their turn.
2. Red Claw Fleet deployment are in the wrong provinces. Shoul be 0501, 0503, 0604 and 0404.
3. (607.583) Hydran Schedule. Fall turns CR should be changed to CU to reflect regular order of battle for general war.
Specific Rule Questions
(607.574) Hellbore Technology: Propose that Hydran BS, BATS, SB to be included. Not sure if PDU should be. I'm thinking no.
In penal honor duel all Hellbore armed ships get a +1 to their die roll.
More to follow later.
|By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 10:10 am: Edit|
A couple more thoughts at this point (i.e. Coalition T3):
-That the Lyrans can choose not to attack the Kzinti, but free up the whole Red Claw Fleet to go attack the Hydrans and then the Kzinti can't ever do anything about that, as the Count's Fleet never gets released if the Lyrans don't attack, and the Kzinti can't attack the Lyrans, seems a little wonky--as of press time, there is not a single Lyran ship north of the xx08 hex row, and the Kzinti are all like "Well, look! Our eternal mortal enemies have completely abandoned all space that borders our space! That used to be ours! And are attacking our allies! We'd better make sure not to violate our border treaties! Or move the fleet that is guarding that border to use against the Klingons that are at the doorstep of our Capital!"
It seems likely that the Kzinti should either be able to attack the Lyrans at *some* point if the Lyrans don't attack *or* the Count's Fleet should get freed up even if the Lyrans don't attack. Especially given that the Count's Fleet is free to pre-emptively attack the Lyrans if the Klingons don't attack the Kzinti.
-The Klingon E3 seems a little wonky as well. I mean, it is hardly an incredibly pressing problem in the game that there is a 2 EP fully functional warship, but it is such a good deal (i.e. only spending 2 EPs on a little pin unit or province raider that is going to just get vaporized anyway instead of 2.5 on an E4) that there is no good explanation why the Klingons would stop producing it and there wouldn't be a billion of them in the General War. I suspect that, given the choice, every single E4 produced in the GW would be produced as an E3 instead if players had the option.
Like, if the intention of the E3 was to reduce Klingon overall effectiveness, making it cost 2 EPs doesn't really do that, as a 2 cost E3 is better for most purposes than a 2.5 cost E4. If the E3 cost 2.5 EPs, it would be bad, and there would be a reason that the Klingons stop producing them. At 2 EPs, it is just way too good of a deal all around. Also, given that it takes 3 damage and only requires 1 repair point to fix, it is as efficient at absorbing damage as the old Fed ECL, which was the best damage absorption unit in the game and deemed broken to the point that it was apparently fixed, changing it from a 2-4 cripple to a 2-3 cripple.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 10:25 am: Edit|
My thoughts on Peter's comments.
Historically, the Klingons DID produce E3 units during the general war for use in combat.
If anything, it needs to be added to the game in the general war time period.
It will be a nice thing for the Klingons if it gets added, without being a major imbalancing factor.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 10:29 am: Edit|
Some of my thoughts after playing 4PW through coalition turn 3.
Far Stars crippled ships. Possibly let Far Stars repair (out of Far Stars money, essentially free) 8EP of repairs a turn (starting turn 2) until all Far Stars ships repaired? This does have an effect on victory points, but it seems to make sense to me.
EB (plus Home Fleet reserve) is (perhaps) too strong on A1 for the Hydrans to deal with at the SB. Perhaps remove BCE from this fleet (and put in Far Stars) and remove BCE from Home Fleet? These two BCEs were added since the old 4PW with no corresponding increase for the Hydrans (in heavy units). It is true that the civil war is more damaging now, though probably not in heavy units. Another possibility is to have the BCEs replace ships, perhaps CAs or a CL and a CA. Or maybe it still works. As the Hydrans totally killed that SB on turn two with no real trouble at that point.
Hydran SRV has a YIS of Y158, should be listed as a possible carrier build.
The leader bonus rule should not apply to Hydran destroyers. I do not know if it should apply to Kzinti CLs, I don't know the YIS of the command CL for the Kzinti.
Why is the Lyran CC a different cost than the CA for conversion to DNE, (it's not in the case of a DN)?.
Can I offer an approach battle to an undefended base (with no fighters) and then retreat without fighting a battle round? I think yes.
One way to stiffen Kzinti defense a bit is to give them another monitor (or two). But maybe they don't really need this. They're certainly tougher compared to the Klingons relatively speaking than during the start of the GW.
If supply is drawn through an enemy inactive fleet area, that should probably activate that fleet. For example: Three Klingon ships in 1003 have a supply path that goes to 0904 0905 0906. Hex 0904 was an inactive fleet area at the time.
Suggest moving ADM from Home Fleets for the Hydrans, Kzinti, and Lyrans to general HQ. The Klingons already have their ADM in general HQ.
In SIT for E3, 'downdrade' should be 'downgrade'.
Suggest adding a note that D7N and D6N are put into a specific fleet (or GHQ) if not using diplomats (as D7 and D6) or are deleted. Strongly suggest Home Fleet, as there is a note that a D7 must be sent to the Romulans if not using (SO) ie diplomats.
Suggest a note for turn two that Count's Fleet is released if the Klingons enter its deployment area.
Suggest change for Count's deployment area to say Lyran-Kzinti neutral zone instead of Lyran neutral zone, as currently 1004 ends up being in both the Count's and Duke's Fleet deployment area.
Suggest adding that Duke's Fleet deployment area does not include any hex in the Count's Fleet Deployment area (currently overlaps in 1004 0803 0903 0904).
Suggest that NZ hexes should be worth 0.1 EP each instead of 0.2 EP during this scenario. This note was made before the change was announced.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 11:35 am: Edit|
Perhaps dropping the E3 crippled factor to '1' might better address the issue making its repair cost the same as the E4.
|By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 12:37 pm: Edit|
>>Perhaps dropping the E3 crippled factor to '1' might better address the issue making its repair cost the same as the E4>>
That certainly would be worth doing. As it is, the E3 (as small as it is) is among the best damage absorbing units in the game (along with standard 12 point BTs and the old Fed ECL).
I'm in no way opposed to the E3 existing into the General War, but as it is, at 2EPs, it is a fantastically good deal and there is no reason that the Klingons wouldn't just keep making these during the GW. A 2 point, fully functional ship (even if the defense factor is dropped to just plain 1) would likely result in E4s becoming mostly, if not entirely, extinct. A few E4 specialty ships are worth producing (including now the E4A at the .5 surcharge; although I'm pretty sure there is an E3A escort variant, which would likely be a 1-3/1 for 2.5, which would still be generally better than an E4 ad-hoc for the same cost...), but in terms of a plain, brown combat hull? E3s are pretty much better for anything you were going to use an E4 for (i.e. anything that requires the cheapest ship you can put in harms way, so you don't feel bad when it gets killed).
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 01:30 pm: Edit|
An E3A would most likely be 1-3/0-1...
|By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 02:38 pm: Edit|
Oh, yeah, good point. Still would probably help make E4s extinct.
Like, don't get me wrong here--I don't think that E3s shouldn't exist or are wildly disruptive to game balance. But the current version (3/1-2) is clearly too good for the 2 points you pay for it, and even at 3/1 for 2 points, it is so fantastic that the Klingons will want a billion of them in the GW (and there is no logical reason that they would stop building them before the GW. As they are awesome).
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 04:00 pm: Edit|
1. The E3 (3/1) is not on the GW schedule and there is only one E4 on that schedule. One would have to do a downgraded substitution and you only two per hull type. Why spend 2 EP to get a unit that absorbs four damage when you buy an F5 for 3 EP that absorbs eight damage and repairs at the same cost?
2. They are not combat effective in the GW era of fighters and later with PFs. Two EP can buy a fighter factor that pays for itself after four engagements.
3. E4 strength value to cost ratio is 3.20 vs the the E3 at 3.00. The E4 repairs at the same cost. Destruction value to cost ratio is 2.40 vs the E3 at 2.00.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 04:11 pm: Edit|
1. For pickets where if the enemy comes to get you, you are going to lose one ship. So why not have that ship be the cheapest one you can buils? From (R3.18):
In my 4PW game with Mr. Bakija, I picket three Kzinti provinces with an F5L, F5 and E3. If he attacks any one of those ships, the other two react in. Then (assuming he has overwhelming force), I send the E3 to hold off the Kzinti, while the F5L and F5 run away (to picket the Kzinti another day!).
2. They certainly aren't. That's not what they're for.
3. The E4 has a better ratio, but I don't buy E4s for their combat strength. I buy them so I don't have to lose a ship that is more expensive instead.
If the E3 gets added to FO for Four Powers War, I would hope that it also gets added to the GW production schedule. It was a historical ship according to the notes in SFB and it would be a waste to have the counter but not allow it to be used. This is true of some of the other 4PW ships as well.
FEDS: It's an obsolete ship type during the GW. I cannot imagine giving up an F5 build slot on the schedule to accommodate the E3. I don't see ADB ADDING a build slot for the E3 especially since the R-sections don't support it.
The E3 was barely adequate for missions in low-intensity
theaters when first deployed, and became increasingly inadequate as
time went by. Production was actually halted about Y160, although
G2 production continued for two decades thereafter. The DSF refitted
its remaining E3s as E3E carrier escorts about the time that the
General War began and found them just as inadequate in that role as
they were in combat. They were replaced with E4s as fast as the production
rate and wartime losses allowed. The last E3s served as convoy
escorts and were finally turned over to the ISF in Y173.
|By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 04:14 pm: Edit|
>>1. The E3 (3/1) is not on the GW schedule and there is only one E4 on that schedule.>>
Well, only 'cause the E3 didn't exist till right now. The E3 is *totally* worth producing. In significant numbers.
>>One would have to do a downgraded substitution and you only two per hull type.>>
Given that E3's are awesome, it would make sense (if the E3 existed in the GW era of the game) for the Klingons to put more of them in the production schedule. And there isn't a reason that they wouldn't.
>>Why spend 2 EP to get a unit that absorbs four damage when you buy an F5 for 3 EP that absorbs eight damage and repairs at the same cost?>>
'Cause they are the cheapest, regular use starship in the galaxy. And as such, incredibly effective at two things:
A) Being cheap hulls for pinning with that will virtually never see main line combat.
B) Being the cheapest thing you can throw in the way of the enemy and not be sad it gets vaporized.
As it currently stands, Klingons use E4s during the GW, for these two things most of the time--they provide cheap clouds of ships to help pin things (and almost never see combat in these instances) and do things like garrison provinces and get killed in SSC in large numbers. If the Klingons could use a 2 cost ship to do both of these things instead of a 2.5 cost ship, where the lower compot is completely irrelevant, they'd do this as often as feasible, I'd imagine. I mean, I know I certainly would.
>>2. They are not combat effective in the GW era of fighters and later with PFs. Two EP can buy a fighter factor that pays for itself after four engagements. >>
Sure. And yet E4s are still worth building (as they are cheap pin bulk and cheap ships to sacrifice when sacrifices need to happen). E3 would be worth building for the same reasons. But even cheaper. And thus, better for those things.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 04:56 pm: Edit|
Peter: See (R3.18).
The best the Klingons could do is a one downgraded sub for the scheduled E4 and two downgraded subs for no more than two F5s.
I will not advocate for direct substitutions of E3 for E4 in the GW as the history does not support it.
|By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 05:46 pm: Edit|
Looking at it from a gamer's prospective the E3 may be a great deal. However; if the ship is only being produced because you can afford to lose them you may have political difficulties with the crew. If getting assigned to an E3 tends to lead to mutinies, they become much more expensive and will be discontinued.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 05:48 pm: Edit|
In universe, it is probably not quite so obvious as it is from our perspective looking at the entire war.
|By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 07:20 pm: Edit|
>>The best the Klingons could do is a one downgraded sub for the scheduled E4 and two downgraded subs for no more than two F5s.
I will not advocate for direct substitutions of E3 for E4 in the GW as the history does not support it.>>
I would still advocate making it a 3/1 ship.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 07:35 pm: Edit|
I am agreeable with 3/1.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 08:01 pm: Edit|
Help me out here...
In all the years of playing 4PW prior to this revision, why is it that no one reported the problems with the Count's Fleet release conditions? Or am I missing something here?
What I might add for turn #3 is that if the Lyrans are at war with the Hydrans then the Kzinti may activate the Count's and Home Fleet and may attack the Lyrans (or the the Coalition if they are already at war with the Klingons).
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 08:05 pm: Edit|
I never played 4PW before, so never looked at it to that extent.
But you are getting a decent playtest now, so be joyous and do not ask us why other people failed before. :-)
|By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 08:05 pm: Edit|
Just to be completely contrarian....
Comparing the E3 to the E4 and the G2, I'm thinking reasonable stats for the E3 might be 2-3 / 1-2.
Reasoning for the defense factor: The E4 has 37 internals and average 13.5-point shields, compared to 31 internals and average 11-point shields for the E3. Definitely weaker, but not 33% weaker. The E3's armament is also more adapted to point defense (4xPh-3 and an ADD), which should count for something on the defensive rating.
Reasoning for the offensive factor: Well, that defensively oriented armament. The only offensive weapons on the E3 are a pair of range-10 disruptors; that's it. This is decidedly inferior to the G2 (2xdrone, 2xPh-2), which is granted an offensive factor of 3.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 08:19 pm: Edit|
Nod, have you playtested it at all by this point?
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation