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 

Hydran Heavy Cruiser vs. New Heavy Cruiser

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
asguard101
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Posts: 163
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 4:29 pm    Post subject: Hydran Heavy Cruiser vs. New Heavy Cruiser Reply with quote

Ok, I'm having some trouble understanding the Ranger Heavy Cruiser & the Mohawk New Heavy Cruiser. The New Heavy Cruiser should have more weapons / shields, but when you actually compare them, they have the same type and amount of weapons, on dif the Fusions on the New Heavy Cruiser a split 50/50 to R/RF & L/LF as apose to FA for all. The new Heavy Cruiser has one more emergency bridge space, one more battery, one more shuttle, one less fighter, one Less shield on the front shield, one less Tractor Beam, and one less bridge space. I don't see how this is a improved heavy cruiser. Any one have any insight on this?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Nerroth
Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1570
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not so much that it's an improved ship - more that it's a 'war' hull which is cheaper and easier to build in wartime (but at the expense of the long service life one can get out of a regular CA).
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul B
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 189

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nerroth wrote:
It's not so much that it's an improved ship - more that it's a 'war' hull which is cheaper and easier to build in wartime (but at the expense of the long service life one can get out of a regular CA).


Wouldn't it be a "war" cruiser instead of a "new" cruiser then?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sbartholome
Ensign


Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well if your Gorn, Its like a Battle Destroyer, or some other such name to get it past the politicians.

Some races got War Cruisers, some got NCA's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asguard101
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Posts: 163
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nerroth wrote:
It's not so much that it's an improved ship - more that it's a 'war' hull which is cheaper and easier to build in wartime (but at the expense of the long service life one can get out of a regular CA).



I would agree with this execpt the cots for the "New Heavy Cruiser" is 111+80 where as the Heavy Cruiser is 111+90 so the only difference in cost is the loss of the one fighter. The base cost of the Cruisers never changes from 111. And the only real gain is the shuttle, which could be considered a loss since it use to be a fighter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dal Downing
Commander


Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 552
Location: Western Wisconsin

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is a lot easier to think of it like this.

When dealing with a Strtegic Level Game like Federation and Empires you only have a certian number of ship yards able to build Heavy/Battle Cruisers, usually like only four or at most six a year. Where the New Heavy Crusiers came in is some one looked at the War Cruiser Hulls and came up with a away to convert/upgrade them to a unit that would function as a Heavy Cruiser in a Battle Fleet. This added atleast 2 more Heavy Cruiser Hulls to the Production schedual a year.

These New Heavy Cruisers while usually carrying or excedeing the number of Weapons of a Heavy Cruiser had were still built as attrition units designed to give hopefully as much as 5 years of service before they were destroyed in combat. As such the suffer many of the same problems as War Cruiser. (Fed NCL, Klingon D5) These hulls were not desgnied for indurance or even able to effectivly operate away from a strong supply chain with out quickly having a degraded perforamce. (So no 5 year missions like a certian ship did on TV many years ago.)

The bottom line is NCAs were intended to be equal to a CA somewere slightly better than thier base Heavy Cruiser Hulls some may be just slightly worst than their Heavy Cruiser Cousins.
_________________
-Dal

"Which one of you is the Biggest, Baddest, Bootlicker of the bunch?"
"I am."
"ARCHERS!!! THAT ONE!!!!"

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
asguard101
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Posts: 163
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dal Downing wrote:
It is a lot easier to think of it like this.

When dealing with a Strtegic Level Game like Federation and Empires you only have a certian number of ship yards able to build Heavy/Battle Cruisers, usually like only four or at most six a year. Where the New Heavy Crusiers came in is some one looked at the War Cruiser Hulls and came up with a away to convert/upgrade them to a unit that would function as a Heavy Cruiser in a Battle Fleet. This added atleast 2 more Heavy Cruiser Hulls to the Production schedual a year.

These New Heavy Cruisers while usually carrying or excedeing the number of Weapons of a Heavy Cruiser had were still built as attrition units designed to give hopefully as much as 5 years of service before they were destroyed in combat. As such the suffer many of the same problems as War Cruiser. (Fed NCL, Klingon D5) These hulls were not desgnied for indurance or even able to effectivly operate away from a strong supply chain with out quickly having a degraded perforamce. (So no 5 year missions like a certian ship did on TV many years ago.)

The bottom line is NCAs were intended to be equal to a CA somewere slightly better than thier base Heavy Cruiser Hulls some may be just slightly worst than their Heavy Cruiser Cousins.



I agree with your assesment of this, and this is good for a F&E gam since is is a larger version of the Medium Mongol Cruiser, however FC was not desgined for F&E and as a NCA it would be better to take the CA unless the point value of your game is under 200 or less.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3081

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NCAs are NEW heavy cruisers, not BIGGER/BETTER heavy cruisers. They're just another way of doing the same job. Easier to build.

A ship is worth what it's worth, and both are worth 111. There isn't anything "wrong". We could not "improve" the NCA to match your (incorrect) idea of what an NCA is (*) because it is in FC what it is in SFB.

(*) See BCH for what you're looking for.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Davec_24
Commander


Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 596
Location: England

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NCAs were (as SVC says) were never meant to be better than CAs as such, but were meant to be bigger/better than the "war" cruisers (or "new light cruisers") so that they could perform the role of a heavy cruiser. While some NCAs are arguably better than their equivalent CAs in terms of sheer "combat power", others are not - and the Hydran is just one of those that wasn't really any significant improvement. The Kzinti NCA is another that isn't really any "better" than the BC (nor is it much worse, hey both have slight advantages over the other but are roughly comparable), but it is a different ship that does the same job in the wartime situation the NCAs were built in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1963
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plus it's worth reiterating that comparison of similar-sounding ship types from different races can also be misleading. As has been said already, the Gorn 'War Cruiser' was actually called the 'Heavy Destroyer' in order to placate the bean counters.

That's why we have the Invincible-class carriers in the Royal Navy. They were called 'through-deck cruisers', the bean counters were placated, to we have the carriers. If we'd called them 'carriers', we'd never have got near them.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nerroth
Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1570
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only place (so far) where a 'new' cruiser is a genuine upgrade over its predecessors is in the Cloud - where for both the Baduvai and Eneen, the war cruisers and war destroyers were superior to the earlier classes they supplanted.

But then, there were decades' worth of time between the development of the war classes and of their earlier counterparts - and despite the names used, they are not intended as the kind of cheap-production hulls you see in the Alpha Octant.



It may, or may not, be something similar in Omega when their speed-31 cruisers are published, but no-one kinows yet what will be the case there.
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
junior
Captain


Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 803

PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

War Cruisers are a distinct class of ship that is an attempt to get most (not all, but most) of a Heavy Cruiser's firepower on a cheaper hull. The D5 is a good example of this. Heavy Cruisers will always out class a war cruiser.

Incidentally, the Hydran War Cruisers are the Medium Cruisers (which are improved versions of the Light Cruisers that aren't in FedCom, and also qualify as War Cruisers).

Later on, it was realized that if you improvised, you could cram a few extra systems into a War Cruiser and turn it into a ship that was functionally identical to a Heavy Cruiser (at least as far as fighting was concerned). Different races went about this in different ways (for instance, the Federation added a small hull and warp engine to the back of the New Light Cruiser, and got their New Heavy Cruiser), but the end result was roughly the same - a ship based off of the War Cruiser hull that was just as capable on the front lines as the Heavy Cruiser.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pinecone
Fleet Captain


Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 1865
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remember that it's also different with hydrans, who have fighters and two different heavy weapons. Comapred to the Dragoon, The Mohawk is better (Counting fighters, that is).
_________________
Doomed to live in secret since discovering that the Air Force Tapes were a fantasy... Embarassed

"Your knowledge of my existence must be punished" Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
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