One question bothers many players: why are there limits on the number of ships in service?

Some things make sense. The most obvious is the Fed CAD, which would take over 98% of fed cruiser construction if allowed to violate historical limits. That is never going to change. Things in this category include penal ships, diplomatic ships, Fed CLD, Fed LTF. I am sure there are others.

But some limits mystify even the designer. Things like monitor pallets, auxiliaries, tug pods. Why are there limits on these cruddy things? Now a per turn construction limit makes sense, but why is it a big deal is on turn 11 you try to build your 11th auxiliary carrier?

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 02:09 pm: Edit

One good reason for limits on Pods is play balance. For most races, a tug equipped with a battle pod is the best cruiser, a tug equipped with a carrier pod is the best carrier, a tug equipped with a G pod is the best marine ship, etc...

By allowing races to build unlimited numbers of pods, as the game progresses - you'll start having fleets built up of more & more tug+pods rather than regular ships.

Currently, tugs get built up to the limit of number of pods (plus a little extra), then they're skipped in favor of other ships.

However, I can't think of a good "historical" reason...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Given all the things tugs do, I wonder if all players really stop when they run out of pods?

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Monitor construction is a fine limit on pallet use, so why limit the pallets. And the price and construction rate on Monitors is perfect.

Auxiliaries are pretty weak, except as slow FCRs. Why count them? Production limts are fine.

Tug pods are more dangerous - they can fly all over the place. Very flexible carriers. Nice (best, often) scouts. PF transport pods. All kinds of good stuff. Limits could be relaxed after some total war date (like 175), but until then they are too useful (and the Klingons/Lyrans can have many LTTs and tugs to use them).

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 02:26 pm: Edit

SVC,
After a certain point - you'll stop building tugs as you need your cruiser slot for other things (carriers, maulers, SFG, command ships, etc). A tug at 8/4, CR8 is better than a regular CA with the same factors (and same cost), but it's not better than a CV, CC, CF etc when you really need those other capabilities.

Then, races like the Feds, Gorn, and Hydrans will stop building tugs - as they aren't effective combat ships without pods.

Same thing applies (but to a lesser degree) for LTTs. There are more CW built slots, so LTTs will get built sometimes even with no need, but the typical LTT is giving up compot as well...

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 02:28 pm: Edit

I know I never stop building tugs, and that's as the Alliance, with the generally inferior combat factors Alliance tugs have. The pod limit does make some sort of sense, though, as it forces a player to make strategic choices as to which tugs get which pods. My normal goal for tug construction is to have at least two combat tugs per battle fleet, so that I have the option of assigning combat pods there, even if I end up having more combat tugs than pods.

Interestingly, my Coallition opponent doesn't seem too bothered when he forgets to assig his pods, as Coallition combat tugs are, from his point of view, a heavy cruiser that can do a few spiffy things. He never stops building them, even after he has enough admin tugs and LTTs to do the grunt work.

Since AO, my opponent and I have had this discussion over unique or limited-run ships quite often. When cases of game balance aren't an issue, we find it hard to fathom the restrictions (and even on a good deal of the ships that are limited for balance purposes). Militaries being how they are, if something is proven to work, it will be repeated over and over, especially when at war. Of course, there are some considerations that limit production that are not balance oriented but fall outside the scope of the game (the old limit on no new survey cruisers, for example), and in those situations, we have no problem at all.

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 02:31 pm: Edit

So, preface my post above with
"IMHO, ..."

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 02:57 pm: Edit

OK, just a thought... What if tugs/LTTs with any pod(s) were move-5 units? (They'd still be move-3 if overloaded.) Could the total pod limits go away then?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 03:00 pm: Edit

This way lies madness.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Removing the limits on the Auxes wouldn't make much difference - they are very marginal builds even at the best of times.

Removing the limits on tug pods would - tug/pod combinations provide an additional source of (eg.) dreadnoughts while only needing a cruiser slipway. So while I think unlimited pod production would make sense, removing the limits would affect game balance. That said, it does seem odd to me that the Hydrans have almost as many pods as the Klingons despite building a tiny fraction of the tugs.

Tugs in F&E are one of the best buys it's possible to make - you can never get enough. Presuming that most nations historically make more or less rational production decisions, there must be factors not represented in the game that make additional tug production a bad idea. This is especially noticable in early scenarios and peacetime - a battle tug has 12 factors, needs a cruiser yard and can be put to a host of non-military uses, an early dreadnought has 10 factors, needs a DN yard and can't do anything but fight.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit

The deal w/ a limit on pods.

It allows you to have a BT one turn, a CVT the next turn, and a supply tug the 3rd turn.

Their versatility is awesome, allowing unlimited pods would mean they would be more popular than DN's.

Why not let the Hydrans have 4 FSP's? They won't mind that, if they can only replace them once a year. 4 BATS insto death and then they Turtle.

Sure 4 H-FCR pods, 108 fighters carried by 4LTTs. The Hydrans won't mind that either.

By Clell Flint (Clell) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 03:37 pm: Edit

One thing that limits help simulate a little, is the fact that a race can only maintain so large of a fleet and specialty ships are harder to maintain. Consider it part of the background maintenance cost. After all we don't want to actually add maintenance to the game as that would make many of the "that way madness lies" issues look sane by comparison.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 03:42 pm: Edit

With a bright galactic wide flash the Masters lifted the physical limitations of pod construction from the galaxy. Suddenly pods were popping out of everyones ears and tugs could not be built fast enough but did become abundant.

Like lumbering phantoms you never knew what you might face in battle. And the battles came. And the blood poured into to space and into flozen red dust.

Thus there was the "Tug Wars".

Nearly a centry of warfare later Master C said to Master P "Huh, well that was wierd." and all was returned to as it was.

By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Honestly I build a tug a year, I often have Tugs operating as nothing more then cruisers in my fleets. They give me the flexability of deploying the pods each turn to whatever part of the front I choose. Also you could easily lose several tugs in a single turn so having extras is always a good thing.

I can't think of many other items that have limits but I am certain that many could be removed without significant impact to the game or balance. However tug pods would make the tugs that many of us already build much more valuable, even more then they already are.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 04:03 pm: Edit

I hate that flozen dust. Gets into everything.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Well, one issue is that tugs - at least the tactically faster Klingon, Lyran and Kzinti tugs - are too good (in SFB, F&E reflects their SFB power reasonably well) at combat. The battletug is available to the Klingons from Y145 and mounts eight disruptors and six drone racks; when they introduce their first purpose-built modern dreadnought in Y150 the designers were only able to mount four of each. There's something screwy there

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 04:08 pm: Edit

SVC: Point taken...

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 04:28 pm: Edit

If you make tug pods unlimited, they could be balanced out by eliminating being able to magically move pods around. Rather than have the unused pods in a pool, they just get left on the board. Maybe require them to be parked at a SB or BATS; kinda like undeployed MB are. Also maybe the mini-tugs could be added in to move them around.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 04:48 pm: Edit

If you remove Pod limits you need to add something to balance this. Drastically higher cost for pods &/or tugs, a requirement that when a tug cripples so does the pod and repair costs for pods,... Something. But there are plenty of possibilities that would limit the start of Tug Wars.

I would like to see all limits on units in service removed. Finding and counting is a pain. (Possible exception for survey cruisers in the off map area.)

The "simplest" way would be to increase the cost (probably to double the current cost) of all units of these sorts built after a lifetime limit equal to present maximum deployment. For Tug pods you throw in a restriction on teleporting pods.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 05:34 pm: Edit

The last thing we need is some goofy rules to "balance" unlimited tug pods. I asked why they are limited, you guys told me, and I'm no longer interested in even discussion the removeal of tug pod limits. They stay. Period.

Aux limits we can consider removing.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 06:11 pm: Edit

Even with the pod limits I think Tugs are just too good a deal. I'd like to see a 50% increase in the price of all tugs to represent the extra cost of their special warp fields and ability to cary pods. Combat tugs would cost 12. Non-Combat tugs would cost 9. LTTs would cost 7 (the Klingon D5G would cost 6). Tugs have always been too good a deal.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit

We aren't here to discuss changing the price of tugs, and frankly, that way lies madness. It ain't gonna happen.

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 06:17 pm: Edit

I don't see any reason to not remove aux limits. I would conjecture (mind you I've no proof in any way except for my own personal FtF and online games) that except for SAF's that not a single person ever buys more.

As a side note I fully expect that there is someone that does, and maybe many someone's that do and I'm sure they have their reasons for doing so.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 07:04 pm: Edit

And so the prophecy has come to pass.

And pretty quick, too; spelling errors and all!

By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Ahh no limts on FCPs... The path to even more Hydran Ftrs