Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Disrupter/drone fights
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Tactics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mojo jojo
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

storeylf wrote:
You are talking about something difference to what I was talking about.

Theres a difference between 5% difference between 2 ships in a 1 vs 1, which is where I was explicitly saying it makes little difference and a 5% difference in points allowed in a tourney. A 7pt difference in a cruiser comparison is neither here nor there, the point system is so inaccurate that difference is meaningless. I seriously have no issue comparing a Kzinti CA to D7 and Kzinti NCA to a D5W or a DN to a DN, and is the most appropiate comparison IMO.


The thing is that we are NOT talking about a 1 on 1 duel. In fact, this entire discussion has been about squadron or fleets. In that case, the C8 consumes 256 pts and the DN consumes 244 whereas the DNH consumes 261 pts. The most fair comparison is the one that compares relatively equal consumption of resources.

Again, we can take an EXACT BPV match with modern ships. DNH, BCH, and NCA vs C8, C7, D5W. Which squadron would you choose?

storeylf wrote:

I'm falling for no such trap. Fighting at long range requires that you maintain range. Like it or not you will be spending a lot of your time fighting over your shoulder, especially against those who you need to fight at long range. You may get the chane to do other things if the opponent allows it (due to empire, or player tactics), but we were discussing fighting at range as far as I was aware and against presumably any fleet. Ability to fight from a position of being pursued is the most important consideration in that case.


Part of the 'ability to fight from a position of being pursued' is having the option of turning and counterattacking if given the opportunity.

storeylf wrote:
It may be that you will not always be pursued hard, or be so worried about it - a kzinti vs klingon fight sees no one with game winning crunch, and may not be a simple chase. But when you face Fed or Hydrans or crunch Orions etc you will need the ability to fight from that position of being pursued.


And you also need the ability to counterattack as well.


storeylf wrote:

if you are outshooting the other guy at range and can maintain it then why else would you need to do something else.


Basically you need to outdamage the other guy. You can do it by shooting over the shoulder vs the other guy's FA weapons, or by counterattacking at the right moment.

storeylf wrote:

I hardly dismissed the long range Orion, in fact I said the all phaser Orions is a good long range squad. A disrupter fleet isn't though. If your disrupter fleet has to double, then you lose your stealth, and you will have to turn into that Fed/Hydran/plasma fleet to shoot. For what you are saying you are doubling for (in addition to speed/weapons which is why you doubled in the first place) you will be sacrificing 2 or 3 engine boxes a turn, dam con 4 will not keep up with that and any burnthrough.


The Orion with disrupters can move at 24+1 and still overload. The pursuer is probably holding standard loads. Trading overloads for standard shots is a winning strategy. And if the Orion is running away, he can either double just 1 engine, or double every other turn. He's still repairing shield boxes at an extremely fast rate.

storeylf wrote:

I struggle to see that as a long range strategy in the terms we are talking about, against anyone who wants to close hard you are delaying impact by a turn whilst you run to a corner. As I have said though Lyran are more a crunch empire, they can afford a long range volley and then accept the point blank crunch, being cornered is not an issue for them in the sense it is for klingons (which is how the discussion started). If you had Feds or hydrans chasing you hard then you would not be doing that at all, the small map would finish you off, and a larger map wouldn't help as you would struggle to bring anything else to bare for the rest of the game.


Having the option to counterattack is a perfectly viable long distance strategy. An open map would've helped me even more since the Plasma R becomes a lot less scary.

storeylf wrote:

Klingons were, to put it in Pauls own words, 'dominating' the game up until I ran out of room to run on the fixed map. At that point a single volley from the Feds effectively won the game, not withstanding that 2 of his ships were reasonably well damaged. Even in a chase the Klingons can maintain damage on a pursuer, if they are not chased hard then they can easily fight a more standard 'sabre dance' style game.


I think you hit it on the head the previous paragraph where Paul was holding overloads. That's not really a good strategy on an open map. If he held standards, then a 2 NCA/CS fleet has 22 PH-1 that can shoot forward plus occasional potshots from range 12 photons and can still go 24. That compares decently with whatever the Klingon can shoot backwards.

storeylf wrote:

If map edges are not an issue, I still say Klingons are the better long range fighter as they can fight at range both in a pursuit, which is essential against someone desperate to close you down, or more on their own terms if the other guy doesn't chase fast enough. Kzinti are second, but their reliance on drones to make up lack of manouvering and weapon arcs is not totally reliable, they are good against some and not so good against others. They also require at some point a reloading period where you are a lot weaker (or a delibeate slow down in fire rate to keep a constant stream out)


At best, the Klingon is better vs Feds and Hydran fusions. Virtually everyone else I would take Kzinti. Certainly in a head to head matchup, Kzinti should beat equal BPV Klingons more times than not.

Bottom line is that from what I know, Klingon and Kzinti were fairly equal in SFB. But the Klingons lost the UIM and yet kept the same BPV. If you lose something significant that the other side didn't but keep the same BPV, it's pretty much unavoidable that you're now overpointed compared to the other guy. Even if the Klingon was better at a couple of matchups, it would still be suboptimal to take them since there are many more matchups where it's not as good (ie even if Klingon is better vs Fed/Hydran fusion (arguable), it's still not as good vs disrupter races, ISC, Andros, HBs, big plasma, etc).

Incidentally, the 2 DWL, D5 squadron is illegal for the tournament. It has 2 of the same 'leader' ship. In the tournament, you're allowed 2 leaders but they must be different.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3488
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[Mod note: This is really a discussion on tactics. Therefore, I finally moved this discussion there. Sorry for not doing it earlier.]
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1869

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The thing is that we are NOT talking about a 1 on 1 duel. In fact, this entire discussion has been about squadron or fleets.


I thought we were talking about klingons and long range fighting generally, I didn't realise you were only talking fleets. Not that it is overly relevant, even sqaudron/fleet comparisons shoud be based on fleets you will face, few campaigns I've seen go by a single BPV total and nothing else in a battle (actually none have), all the ones I've seen have other factors in there as well. Set scenarios are obviously fixed and points games base around each sides best ships, not closest match.

We also need to refresh our minds on what we were discussing,

storeylf wrote:
The problems with klingons is the small map. Crunch dominates on such a map, and klingons don't get the time or space to wear down such an opponent. Kzinti get their drones which help keep others at bay, Lyrans get their ESG which puts them in the crunch category anyway. Never really looked at Wyn.


mojo jojo wrote:
If you want to play a long range sniping fight, the other 3 races are simply better.


If you are talking about counter attacking, closing for ESG rams etc then you are not talking about the same thing - a long range sniping fight is not ESG rams and close range counter attacks. I don't disagree that Kzinti or Lyran at better at other things, clearly that is what I was basically saying in my quote. But if map edges are not an issue then klingons are the king of ranged fights against anyone you'd really want to play such a game. They have no need to close and 'counter attack'.

Kzinti are not as good at forcing the long range sniping fight, they can't maintain the damage without turning into the enemy. Drones may or may not help much, that depends on who you face, and whether you can maintain a stream of them over a long fight.

The ability to fight up close does not mean that they must be better at long range fighting than klingons. How good they are up close is irrelevant to whether they are better at long range fights, pretty much by definition.


Quote:
And you also need the ability to counterattack as well.


No you don't.

Quote:
Basically you need to outdamage the other guy. You can do it by shooting over the shoulder vs the other guy's FA weapons, or by counterattacking at the right moment.


You can, but your argument was that Klingons are worse at long range sniping, not at going head to head. If all weapons can fire over the shoulder then there is no need to do anything else to outdamage the other guy. If you are not outdamaging over the shoulder then you are probably not going to by facing head on either. If 'counterattacking' is required to be part of the strategy then you have introduced another point of weakness - can you turn fast enough to even grab the right moment at all, will it actually outdamage someone with better close in weapons etc.

Quote:
The Orion with disrupters can move at 24+1 and still overload. The pursuer is probably holding standard loads. Trading overloads for standard shots is a winning strategy. And if the Orion is running away, he can either double just 1 engine, or double every other turn. He's still repairing shield boxes at an extremely fast rate.


Again, overloaded disrupters are not long range sniping. Those orions just can't get away with long range sniping.

You may be repairing shields at 'fast' rate, but to use your Fed example above, you are taking 22 damage in that turn at range 9-15, you aren't repairing that many. If you double 1 engine (on a BC) for 8 extra energy (10 on the first turn, 8 thereafter) you repair 4 extra shields and take 11 extra damage on average as well as an engine.



Quote:
I think you hit it on the head the previous paragraph where Paul was holding overloads. That's not really a good strategy on an open map. If he held standards, then a 2 NCA/CS fleet has 22 PH-1 that can shoot forward plus occasional potshots from range 12 photons and can still go 24. That compares decently with whatever the Klingon can shoot backwards.


It wasn't a mistake to hold overloads. It was when on an open map (against kzinti), but in the klingon game he could afford the overloads as we were still on a fixed map (albeit larger), and eventually he was likely to corner me. It wasn't tourney squadrons either. Had he not held overloads he would not have delivered the winning volley, and neither would I have been quite so worried about going past him and turning the game into a circling fight (which suits klingons even better), with overload photons it is very hard to get round the Feds to start that circling fight, or start running the other way as you will probably be cut off and hit with that photon volley.

But if the Fed does what you suggest they are not likley to get range 12 shots, and are not just facing klingon rear fire weapons. The more they slow down to fire the more the klingons have the freedom to turn and bring all weapons in. Against a Fed doing 24 you need 26 energy to maintain a 13-15 range whilst using side firing disrupters and Ph1s. 3 D5Ws can output 33 damage a turn whilst avoiding range 12 against a Fed doing 24, thats a losing proposition for Feds.

Any photons volleys the Feds do take will hurt their energy for 2 turns afterwards. Firing a full volley results in the Feds probably turning off the following turn whilst they reload, that allows the Klinks to take a position behind the feds from which they struggle to come back from due to turn inferiority, or at least give the Klinks more time (avoiding map edges longer).


Quote:
Certainly in a head to head matchup, Kzinti should beat equal BPV Klingons more times than not.


Why would you think that? Wider arcs, better turning, usually better energy, and excellent drone counters makes them a match for kzinti.

Quote:
Again, we can take an EXACT BPV match with modern ships. DNH, BCH, and NCA vs C8, C7, D5W. Which squadron would you choose?


Neither in the context of a good long range fleet. I'd consider 4 D5Ws for LESS points as being better. The Kzinti fleet is awful for ranged fighting - turn mode E on the DNH with FA only disrupters! I'm not sure how you can see that as being good at a long range fight, even Feds can run circles around that, by the time that has turned around to bring disrupters into arc against something that was behind it there is a very good chance that you are still out of arc. Give me a choice between 592 pts of Kzinti and 4D5Ws.


PS good spot on the leaders in a tourney squadron, hadn't noticed that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mojo jojo
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, I was out of town for awhile.



storeylf wrote:
I thought we were talking about klingons and long range fighting generally, I didn't realise you were only talking fleets. Not that it is overly relevant, even sqaudron/fleet comparisons shoud be based on fleets you will face, few campaigns I've seen go by a single BPV total and nothing else in a battle (actually none have), all the ones I've seen have other factors in there as well. Set scenarios are obviously fixed and points games base around each sides best ships, not closest match.


I have never seen a campaign where BPV wasn't a factor. A ship that costs 256 pts consumes more resources than a ship that costs 244 pts. I don't see why that's even arguable.


storeylf wrote:

If you are talking about counter attacking, closing for ESG rams etc then you are not talking about the same thing - a long range sniping fight is not ESG rams and close range counter attacks. I don't disagree that Kzinti or Lyran at better at other things, clearly that is what I was basically saying in my quote. But if map edges are not an issue then klingons are the king of ranged fights against anyone you'd really want to play such a game. They have no need to close and 'counter attack'.


A long range fight still has as your objective, wrecking the enemy fleet while preserving your own. Counterattacking is a very valid strategy to achieve that goal.

storeylf wrote:

Kzinti are not as good at forcing the long range sniping fight, they can't maintain the damage without turning into the enemy. Drones may or may not help much, that depends on who you face, and whether you can maintain a stream of them over a long fight.

The ability to fight up close does not mean that they must be better at long range fighting than klingons. How good they are up close is irrelevant to whether they are better at long range fights, pretty much by definition.


Drones are pretty damn good. The generally at least absorb phaser fire, reducing what is being shot at you.

storeylf wrote:

You may be repairing shields at 'fast' rate, but to use your Fed example above, you are taking 22 damage in that turn at range 9-15, you aren't repairing that many. If you double 1 engine (on a BC) for 8 extra energy (10 on the first turn, 8 thereafter) you repair 4 extra shields and take 11 extra damage on average as well as an engine.


You are taking 22 damage (10 or so net damage after shield repair), but you are still inflicting 10-15 damage on the Fed per turn. And you're only taking 22 on the turns you double. You're only taking 11 on the turns you don't double.

storeylf wrote:

It wasn't a mistake to hold overloads. It was when on an open map (against kzinti), but in the klingon game he could afford the overloads as we were still on a fixed map (albeit larger), and eventually he was likely to corner me. It wasn't tourney squadrons either. Had he not held overloads he would not have delivered the winning volley, and neither would I have been quite so worried about going past him and turning the game into a circling fight (which suits klingons even better), with overload photons it is very hard to get round the Feds to start that circling fight, or start running the other way as you will probably be cut off and hit with that photon volley.


How big is the fixed map?

storeylf wrote:

But if the Fed does what you suggest they are not likley to get range 12 shots, and are not just facing klingon rear fire weapons. The more they slow down to fire the more the klingons have the freedom to turn and bring all weapons in. Against a Fed doing 24 you need 26 energy to maintain a 13-15 range whilst using side firing disrupters and Ph1s. 3 D5Ws can output 33 damage a turn whilst avoiding range 12 against a Fed doing 24, thats a losing proposition for Feds.


The Klingon is only doing 33 damage a turn if it 'waggles'. If it does that, it becomes very difficult if not impossible to maintain 13-15 range since it loses some range when it does so.

storeylf wrote:

Any photons volleys the Feds do take will hurt their energy for 2 turns afterwards. Firing a full volley results in the Feds probably turning off the following turn whilst they reload, that allows the Klinks to take a position behind the feds from which they struggle to come back from due to turn inferiority, or at least give the Klinks more time (avoiding map edges longer).


Only spending 4 energy instead of 8 to hold photons allows them to either gain distance or battery away the damage. And a 12 hex shot would probably involve firing half the photons per turn, not all of them. With 6 photons, that's still 2 hits on average or 16 damage on top of phaser damage. That's going to hurt. If the Klingons turn in, they'll still face 6 photons in addition to phaser superiority.

storeylf wrote:

Why would you think that? Wider arcs, better turning, usually better energy, and excellent drone counters makes them a match for kzinti.


Kzinti tend to be better at range 0-2 and about the same at 4-15. It's only range 3 where Klingons are clearly superior because of the PH-2 that they have. Kzinti are better at 0-2 because of all the PH-3 they have, and are at worst equal at 4-15 because of equal Dis, relatively equal PH-1, and more drones. So it's very difficult for Klingons to maintain exactly range 2.

storeylf wrote:

Neither in the context of a good long range fleet. I'd consider 4 D5Ws for LESS points as being better. The Kzinti fleet is awful for ranged fighting - turn mode E on the DNH with FA only disrupters! I'm not sure how you can see that as being good at a long range fight, even Feds can run circles around that, by the time that has turned around to bring disrupters into arc against something that was behind it there is a very good chance that you are still out of arc. Give me a choice between 592 pts of Kzinti and 4D5Ws.


Heh heh heh. You've been the one who's been trying to compare equal classes throughout the entire thread. And now you want to compare 4 NCA to DN, BCH, and NCA.

Given the exact 592 pt matchup of modern ships, which do you prefer?

Incidentally, throughout this thread, you apparently only consider the DWL, D5W, D5, and F5W as Klingon ships. You seem to assume that the entire Klingon fleet is made up of these ships and not consider that the majority of any Klingon fleet would NOT be composed of these ships. I think it would be more honest to compare the Klingon fleet as a whole, especially if you're talking about a campaign as you have been throughout this thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
terryoc
Captain


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1379

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In a campaign where players can build whatever they want, they tend to build the best combat designs, which usually means the war classes. If there is reason to build other ships, then you may see other designs, or "the best of the rest".
_________________
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mojo jojo
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

terryoc wrote:
In a campaign where players can build whatever they want, they tend to build the best combat designs, which usually means the war classes. If there is reason to build other ships, then you may see other designs, or "the best of the rest".


True, but you still need DN, BCH, and FF level ships. It's hard to tell since this topic has meandered quite a bit. What has been discussed seems to have wandered from tournament fleets to Campaigns with very vaguely defined parameters vs potentially any type of opposition.

I still think it still boils down to the loss of UIM as a major factor in Klingons losing ground relative to Kzinti. At range 3-8, Klingons used to hit on 1-5 with overloads. That gave them a much broader range where they were superior to the Kzinti in a fight. If they were equal in SFB before, then they couldn't possibly be equal in FC now with the loss of that capability unless the Kzinti lost something equally valuable (which obviously isn't the case).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sneaky Scot
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 384
Location: Thornbury, Gloucestershire

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would you consider that the loss of advanced drone types (heavy drones, multi-warheads, armoured drones etc.) and the loss of fast firing drone racks and large drone racks is as bad or worse than losing the UIM (although the fact that the Klingons also lose some of this as well, but not as much)?
_________________
Nothing is quite as persuasive as a disruptor pistol on slow burn and a rotisserie......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1869

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mojo jojo wrote:
storeylf wrote:
few campaigns I've seen go by a single BPV total and nothing else in a battle (actually none have), all the ones I've seen have other factors in there as well. Set scenarios are obviously fixed and points games base around each sides best ships, not closest match.


I have never seen a campaign where BPV wasn't a factor. A ship that costs 256 pts consumes more resources than a ship that costs 244 pts. I don't see why that's even arguable.




Campaigns is pretty much all I play, barring the odd game with The_Rock. Maybe you need to re-read what I said, I have never played a campaign where BPV was the only factor, and I have indeed played a campaign where BPV was not a factor at all in the initial fleet selection. Campaigns with restrctions on what hulls are available (at all, or at some point in time) are not uncommon. Campaigns with some command limit per battle, or fleet structure are also not to unusual. Not all games within a campaign may be simple fights, they may well involve 1 vs 1 as well as 7 vs 7 and seldom even pointed games. They may involve other goals, or terrain. In a campaign where you are not facing a random opponent each time you will also be able to tailor a bit more.

So in some campaigns it may be that BPV is of some concern, but seldom to the level you think. In either case, a difference of 5% on an individual ship is seldom an issue when it comes to balance. The game has so many BPVs that just don't make sense when compared to other ships that reliance on BPV at that level of difference is meaningless. Why compare a 148 point ship to a Fed CA but a 149pt ship to a Fed NCA? The Fed NCA is vastly better, but only 3 points more!

This part of the discussion started because I compared comparable hulls as much as possible. To use your phrase, I don't see why that's even arguable that it is not a sensible comparison. I have noted a couple of times that closest BPV comparison makes sense in something like the current tournament, but beyond that it is far from obvious that it is the way comparisons should be done. Even then though you would compare what you can get for the total BPV, not closest individual ships.



Quote:

A long range fight still has as your objective, wrecking the enemy fleet while preserving your own. Counterattacking is a very valid strategy to achieve that goal.


But your assertion wasn't about other strategies, it was very specifically about long range sniping. No one is arguing that other empires are better at other strategies, you were arguing that Klingons are not as good at long range sniping. That is why klingons are so bad in the existing tourney, other empires can adapt to the small map better.


Quote:
Drones are pretty damn good. The generally at least absorb phaser fire, reducing what is being shot at you.


Drones are good, but how good depends on who you meet. In a long range sniping game they may not be absorbing phaser fire. Speed it self is a defense against drones. Kzinti still suffer from generally less long range phasers, inferior disrupter arcs and turn modes. In some cases that may be made up by drones, but you can't rely on it, neither can you maintain them in a longer game (which long range games tend to become). Klingons have drones as well of course, certainly in less numbers, but because they rely on them less they are in some ways better for what we are talking about, they enhance what klingons do well already, rather than be the necessary crutch for long range fighting. Again kzinti suit other tactics better than long range sniping as a generalisation.


Quote:
You are taking 22 damage (10 or so net damage after shield repair), but you are still inflicting 10-15 damage on the Fed per turn. And you're only taking 22 on the turns you double. You're only taking 11 on the turns you don't double.


So you are repairing 12 shields, i.e. 24 power, that would be 3 engines on a cruiser size ship. That on average appears to save you 1 shield damage in return for 3 engine boxes, plus an increased chance of burnthoughs. How is that good?


mojo jojo wrote:
The Klingon is only doing 33 damage a turn if it 'waggles'. If it does that, it becomes very difficult if not impossible to maintain 13-15 range since it loses some range when it does so.



Against the fed doing 24 in your example you need 2 extra accel power to make up the 2 hexes it gives up on a turn to maintain 13-15, so two turns to waggle requires 28. That leaves 11 spare power per ship, which can be used to output 33 damage per turn at 13-15 without giving up range. Or you can use the 11 power on the targted ship to reinforce so you still do 22+ to the feds whilst reducing the incoming damage by 9-11 against 3 ships. Even if you only do a single turn you deal an average 29 a turn (if you want to max damage) with 2 spare power. That gives you some margin of safety against a Fed who start to accelerate, or 2 reinforcement.


Quote:
Only spending 4 energy instead of 8 to hold photons allows them to either gain distance or battery away the damage. And a 12 hex shot would probably involve firing half the photons per turn, not all of them. With 6 photons, that's still 2 hits on average or 16 damage on top of phaser damage. That's going to hurt. If the Klingons turn in, they'll still face 6 photons in addition to phaser superiority.


If the closest you are getting is range 13 do you hold them standard or fire them?

What when you face those Kzinti? The Feds there do have an easier time. The typical 450 pt Kzintis (NCAs) are not in a position to bring significant firepower to bear with a single turn. Fed phasers will easily outdamage Kzinti rear firing phasers, so the kzinti must turn and face to bring disrupters in. They tend to have a bit less power, and that inferior turn mode sees the range drop faster. They can't avoid range 12, nor probably even range 8. Kzinti drones are a nuisance, but they are unlikley to allow the kzinti win a long range fight unless the Fed holds all overloads. Are Kzinti going to be better against Feds at closer range - almost certainly if they come in with the drones, but again your point was about long range sniping not close range fighting.


Quote:
Kzinti tend to be better at range 0-2 and about the same at 4-15. It's only range 3 where Klingons are clearly superior because of the PH-2 that they have. Kzinti are better at 0-2 because of all the PH-3 they have, and are at worst equal at 4-15 because of equal Dis, relatively equal PH-1, and more drones. So it's very difficult for Klingons to maintain exactly range 2.


You ignored every thing I pointed out and concentrated on raw fire power. The klingons are pretty even matched to the Kzinti, who may have the edge will depend on other factors, size of fight, size of ships, terrain, targets that have to be defended etc.



Quote:
Heh heh heh. You've been the one who's been trying to compare equal classes throughout the entire thread. And now you want to compare 4 NCA to DN, BCH, and NCA.


You have been the one saying it should be just based on a BPV comparison! You never gave me a choice of equal hull types but equal BPV squadrons.

I never said anything about comparing 4 NCA to DN, BCH, and NCA. Quite the contrary I specifically asked you to provide a 592 pt Kzinti squadron, we can then compare that with the 4 NCA and see which is likley better at a long range fight. If you were actually meaning to offer equal hulls you'd have asked whether I preferred the DNH, BCH, NCA or a C10, C7, D5W (or have droppped the Kzniti DNH to a DN).


Quote:

Given the exact 592 pt matchup of modern ships, which do you prefer?


I don't know, you haven't given me a kzinti 592 pt squadron to compare with yet?


Quote:
Incidentally, throughout this thread, you apparently only consider the DWL, D5W, D5, and F5W as Klingon ships.


I think you missed my first response. The one where I compared a D7, D5W, DN and F5. 3 out the 4 hulls I compared were not the ones you think I have been only looking at. Where I have assumed the 'better' klingons has been in the context of exactly what you seem to think is important - if you were going by points alone (as you say we should) then you would go for 'better' ships. Where have I been dishonest in comparing ships?

I have not been talking about a campaign throughout the thread either. I have been talking about whether Klingons are better or worse at long range figting, as that was your original argument. I have pointed out that campaigns are one good reason to compare by hull type rather than BPV, and that campaigns are seldom just a simple BPV pick as you think. I am not talking about campaigns and I am not talking about whether Kzinti/Lyrans are better at other tactics. As soon as you say that klingons are not as good as others irrespective of map size then you are clearly no longer just talking the current FC tournament format, and hence not necesarily just straight BPV picks.

Quote:
If they were equal in SFB before, then they couldn't possibly be equal in FC now with the loss of that capability unless the Kzinti lost something equally valuable (which obviously isn't the case).


Really? I can't say whether Klingons were or were not equal to Kzniti in SFB, though I assume that the SFB tourney was - but that used tourney specific ships, as opposed all the other ships in SFB. But the tourney being balanced and SFB being balanced are not the same thing. However, given that so much else has changed between FC and SFB it is not possible to say that they cannot be equal just beacuse they lost UIM. As noted above the Kzinti lost a lot with drone changes, be it drone types, rack types or control shifting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mojo jojo
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

storeylf wrote:

So in some campaigns it may be that BPV is of some concern, but seldom to the level you think. In either case, a difference of 5% on an individual ship is seldom an issue when it comes to balance. The game has so many BPVs that just don't make sense when compared to other ships that reliance on BPV at that level of difference is meaningless. Why compare a 148 point ship to a Fed CA but a 149pt ship to a Fed NCA? The Fed NCA is vastly better, but only 3 points more!


BPV certainly is of concern. And I repeat, it's not just 5% for 1 ship, but that ship has to fit in the context of a squadron or fleet. If you're spending 12 pts more on your DN, you obviously have 12 pts less to spend on another ship. It makes far more sense to compare to a ship that's 2% off rather than 5%.


storeylf wrote:

This part of the discussion started because I compared comparable hulls as much as possible. To use your phrase, I don't see why that's even arguable that it is not a sensible comparison.


Ok, I'll take ISC CAs and CS/CLs when facing your D5Ws and D5s. Other than your arbitrary 5% threshold, they're the same hull type. The fact that they consume a much larger chunk of the budget shouldn't matter right?

storeylf wrote:

But your assertion wasn't about other strategies, it was very specifically about long range sniping. No one is arguing that other empires are better at other strategies, you were arguing that Klingons are not as good at long range sniping. That is why klingons are so bad in the existing tourney, other empires can adapt to the small map better.


mojo jojo wrote:
Incidentally with Klingons, their problem is that if you want to play a drone/disrupter fleet, Kzinti, Orions, or WYN are generally better on a point per point basis. You really have to give them more points to compensate.


I believe my original point, which you disputed, was that Kzinti, Orion, or WYN are better on a point per point basis. To discount the ability to counterattack as a viable means of long range fighting is ludicrous since it's a very fundamental part of their makeup.

storeylf wrote:

Drones are good, but how good depends on who you meet. In a long range sniping game they may not be absorbing phaser fire. Speed it self is a defense against drones. Kzinti still suffer from generally less long range phasers, inferior disrupter arcs and turn modes. In some cases that may be made up by drones, but you can't rely on it, neither can you maintain them in a longer game (which long range games tend to become). Klingons have drones as well of course, certainly in less numbers, but because they rely on them less they are in some ways better for what we are talking about, they enhance what klingons do well already, rather than be the necessary crutch for long range fighting. Again kzinti suit other tactics better than long range sniping as a generalisation.


How big is the map that you are talking about?

storeylf wrote:
So you are repairing 12 shields, i.e. 24 power, that would be 3 engines on a cruiser size ship. That on average appears to save you 1 shield damage in return for 3 engine boxes, plus an increased chance of burnthoughs. How is that good?


With a 'cruiser sized ship' ie the BC or CA, you're actually repairing 15 shields for 3 engines. For the OK6, you're repairing 15 shields for 2 engines. For the BR, you're repairing 12 shields for 2 engines. You can always run the ship doing repairs a little faster than the others and get to 16 hex range. Anyway, shield repair was simply an example of the flexibility you have with engine doubling.

The point is that you declared Orions to be terrible long range fighters and you immediately dismissed the possibility of overloaded counterattacks, not admitting that the possibility of counterattacking directly influences how the pursuer pursues and shapes the battle greatly compared to someone who isn't as good at counterattacks.


storeylf wrote:
Against the fed doing 24 in your example you need 2 extra accel power to make up the 2 hexes it gives up on a turn to maintain 13-15, so two turns to waggle requires 28. That leaves 11 spare power per ship, which can be used to output 33 damage per turn at 13-15 without giving up range. Or you can use the 11 power on the targted ship to reinforce so you still do 22+ to the feds whilst reducing the incoming damage by 9-11 against 3 ships. Even if you only do a single turn you deal an average 29 a turn (if you want to max damage) with 2 spare power. That gives you some margin of safety against a Fed who start to accelerate, or 2 reinforcement.


And if the Fed decides to go 32 that turn without firing phasers? You have to decide to waggle well before the turn is over, so the Fed who doesn't fire weapons until impulse 8 can see your strategy long in advance. Your turning will definitely result in some lost ground.


storeylf wrote:

If the closest you are getting is range 13 do you hold them standard or fire them?

What when you face those Kzinti? The Feds there do have an easier time. The typical 450 pt Kzintis (NCAs) are not in a position to bring significant firepower to bear with a single turn. Fed phasers will easily outdamage Kzinti rear firing phasers, so the kzinti must turn and face to bring disrupters in. They tend to have a bit less power, and that inferior turn mode sees the range drop faster. They can't avoid range 12, nor probably even range 8. Kzinti drones are a nuisance, but they are unlikley to allow the kzinti win a long range fight unless the Fed holds all overloads. Are Kzinti going to be better against Feds at closer range - almost certainly if they come in with the drones, but again your point was about long range sniping not close range fighting.


Kzinti BCs can waggle pretty well. If you think waggling is a viable strategy, they have 4 disrupters and 4 PH1 that can fire out of the L or R facing.

Anyway, my main point, which you disputed, was that Kzinti, WYN, and Orions were better than Klingons on a point for point basis. You latched onto the long range thing without addressing the original point.


storeylf wrote:

You ignored every thing I pointed out and concentrated on raw fire power. The klingons are pretty even matched to the Kzinti, who may have the edge will depend on other factors, size of fight, size of ships, terrain, targets that have to be defended etc.


I betcha most FC players on this board would choose Kzinti over Klingon if the mission wasn't known. Kzinti are simply better in most missions.


storeylf wrote:

You have been the one saying it should be just based on a BPV comparison! You never gave me a choice of equal hull types but equal BPV squadrons.

I never said anything about comparing 4 NCA to DN, BCH, and NCA. Quite the contrary I specifically asked you to provide a 592 pt Kzinti squadron, we can then compare that with the 4 NCA and see which is likley better at a long range fight. If you were actually meaning to offer equal hulls you'd have asked whether I preferred the DNH, BCH, NCA or a C10, C7, D5W (or have droppped the Kzniti DNH to a DN).


So your idea of a 'fair' fight is that the other guy spots you 22 pts. Gotcha.

storeylf wrote:

I don't know, you haven't given me a kzinti 592 pt squadron to compare with yet?


I gave you a completely fair DNH, BCH, NCA vs C8, C&, D5W matchup. In fact, I gave you this matchup a number of posts ago. And you've been very busy not answering the question.


storeylf wrote:

I think you missed my first response. The one where I compared a D7, D5W, DN and F5. 3 out the 4 hulls I compared were not the ones you think I have been only looking at. Where I have assumed the 'better' klingons has been in the context of exactly what you seem to think is important - if you were going by points alone (as you say we should) then you would go for 'better' ships. Where have I been dishonest in comparing ships?


All your 'runaway and fire over the shoulder' examples have involved the FH+L and FH+R ships. You never seem to use the FA disrupter ships when calculating damage while running away.


storeylf wrote:

Really? I can't say whether Klingons were or were not equal to Kzniti in SFB, though I assume that the SFB tourney was - but that used tourney specific ships, as opposed all the other ships in SFB. But the tourney being balanced and SFB being balanced are not the same thing. However, given that so much else has changed between FC and SFB it is not possible to say that they cannot be equal just beacuse they lost UIM. As noted above the Kzinti lost a lot with drone changes, be it drone types, rack types or control shifting.


The Kzinti lost the ability to purchase different drone types. They gained a major advantage in that T bombs and Wild Weasels were lost, thus they couldn't lose 20 drones in a single pop. This is an example of losing something while gaining an offsetting advantage. Whereas the loss of the UIM was a pure loss without any offset.

And yes from what I heard, Klingons and Kzinti were fairly evenly matched on a BPV basis in SFB. There had been over 20 years of balancing. So I repeat, if they were balanced before and one side loses something notable without an offset, they have to be relatively inferior now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1869

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mojo jojo wrote:

Anyway, my main point, which you disputed, was that Kzinti, WYN, and Orions were better than Klingons on a point for point basis. You latched onto the long range thing without addressing the original point.


All you seem to be able to do is retread the same old ground, and constantly try and misrepresent what I have said.

I clearly stated in the first line of my first response that I agreed with some of what you said. I did not dispute what you are claiming I disputed. I dispute the long range sniping point.

Quote:
Ok, I'll take ISC CAs and CS/CLs when facing your D5Ws and D5s. Other than your arbitrary 5% threshold, they're the same hull type. The fact that they consume a much larger chunk of the budget shouldn't matter right?


As you noted I try to compare equal hulls except where the BPV is clearly way out. So no I wouldn't compare a D5W to an ISC CA.

Comparing the nearest possible BPV is ludicrous in many cases. Whether it is campaigns or tourneys it results in too many meaningless comparisons. It results in comparing CAs to NCAs when few people take CAs if they get free choice, and in campaigns will probably not be a sensible comparison either. Or (N)CAs to command ships which have different tourney restrictions, and again is not always a good campaign comparison.

Quote:
I believe my original point, which you disputed, was that Kzinti, Orion, or WYN are better on a point per point basis. To discount the ability to counterattack as a viable means of long range fighting is ludicrous since it's a very fundamental part of their makeup.


As I keep saying, and you keep ignoring. I dispute that your statement that klingons are worse at long range sniping. How many times do I have to say I don't disagree with other parts of your original statement.

You seem unable to grasp that I know that Lyrans and Kzniti have tactics that Klingons are not so good at. That doesn't mean that they are better than klingons at long range sniping. Being good at tactic A is not the same as being good at tactic B.

Quote:
The point is that you declared Orions to be terrible long range fighters


Again reread all my posts, I have said no such thing. It was the disrupter orions I don't think are good. And again for the umpteenth time, that is in relation to long range sniping fights.

Quote:
Kzinti BCs can waggle pretty well. If you think waggling is a viable strategy, they have 4 disrupters and 4 PH1 that can fire out of the L or R facing.


They can waggle, but not well. They have less power and tend to give give up more ground per turn due to inferior turn mode. Each point they spend accelerating is a weapon that can't fire, and they will probably be accelerating to make up for the poor turn mode (or just to outrun something). The Waggling Klingons can fire the same 4 disr and Ph1s and still accelerate some as well.

Quote:
All your 'runaway and fire over the shoulder' examples have involved the FH+L and FH+R ships. You never seem to use the FA disrupter ships when calculating damage while running away.


Like I said I compared klingons with FA disrupters in my first post. Heck I even compared the D7 with FA disrupters to the Kzinti BC with wide arc disrupters.

Most of the rest of the thread was the consequence of you disputing stuff about a specific Klingon vs Fed game between me and Paul, which was D5Ws vs NCAs.

And as I say if you are wanting to use BPV only free choice that is exactly what you will be comparing with, because those ships are the ones people will choose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Tactics All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group