Federation Commander

Copied this here, as it is isn't related to the one it was posted in anymore (which was about handicapping in tourney) now that it has moved to just talking about disrupter drone fights on large maps.

Patrick Doyle wrote: The reason the Klingons are at somewhat of a disadvantage in the tournament is not that Klingons stink, (though they have some issues) but it is hard to arrive at a competitive combination of ships with fleets of 450.

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.

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:The problem with Klingons is that they're simply not as good as Kzinti, Orion, or Wyn in a drone/disrupter fight regardless of map size. If you want to play a long range sniping fight, the other 3 races are simply better.

Orions generally have a little less base power, but they have stealth and engine doubling plus roughly the same number of weapons as an equivalent point Klingon. They should win either a long range sniping duel, or a short range fight as long as they double engines on that turn.

Kzinti tend to have the same number of disrupters and PH-1, but a lot more drones and PH-3. Klingons tend to have some PH-2 in weird arcs. From experience, Kzinti are simply more dangerous regardless of the size of map.

WYN tend to have the same number of disrupters, but slightly more PH1/Drones as Klingon plus better shielding. Plus they have the PBB and AxC which are excellent for their point values.

Even Lyrans are probably better at long range. They have the same number of disrupters and far more PH-1 as an equivalent Klingon. They can easily deal with Klingon drones and can steadily do a few more damage each turn at 9-15 hex range if forced into that kind of fight.

Mojo, I disagree with some (but not all) of what you say. Lets go for the largest map, floating, so there are no egdes to get stuck against. Against the sort of opponents you need to long range snipe you will be nearly always need to go 24(+) as they will probably be running you down as best as possible.

Kzinti are not particularly better. They tend to have similar number of disrupters. They certianly don't have the same number of longer range phasers.

An Kzinti BC has 4 disrupters and 4 ph1s. The D7 has 4 disrupters and 3 Ph1s and 6 Ph2s. It also has a better turn mode and a good bit of extra non-battery power. Whilst the kzinti has extra drones they become somewhat less important in long range (and longer lasting) fights, especially once they get to the reloading stage or dealing with anyone with ADDs/drones (energy free drone killing). Also as the enemy is probably going speed 24(+) to chase you down they may well be able to simply dodge some of them. The Kzinti cannot keep up its full (long range) firepower whilst doing speed 24+, the klingon can go faster than a kzinti and turn better (and have move intiative) whilst keeping up the same amount of firepower. The kzinti has the better arcs, on the other hand with the greater power issues has to be careful if it turns to use them against something it wants to avoid as it loses ground fast, that longer turn mode is a knacker after turning side on as it means you give up another hex before you can turn away again compared to the klingon.

A Kzinti NCA has 4 disrupters and 4 Ph1s again, where as the D5W has 4 disrupters, 6 Ph1s and 2 Ph2s. Much better long range firepower. The Klingon still has slightly more non-battery power and the turn mode adavantage. It also has the better arcs arcs this time and being in a slightly better position to use them.

As a side note, Kzinti are interesting going from CA to NCA, the older ship has much better arcs, but less energy. If you are choosing for long range it is a pain either way, you really want the arcs, but really need the power as well.

A Kzinti DN has 6 Disr and 7 Ph1s vs a C8s 6 Disr and 10 Ph1s and 2 Ph2s, they even have the same number of drones. THe Klingon again has the better turn mode and more power (inc battery this time).

A Kzinti FF has 1 disr and 2 Ph1s, an F5 has 2 disr and 2 Ph1s and 3 Ph2s. THe FF has less power, but is better on that front due to better move cost. Though in larger fights small ships go down fast, even at longer range. At least the F5s better shields help a bit there.

Overall I'd say they are about even in a long range fight, Kzinti will do better where the opponent struggles to deal with drones, but with less fire power and generally less energy and worse turn modes they struggle more at keeping away (if that is needed) and actually outshooting someone.



Orions are interesting. They have stealth which is a big advantage, especially at longer range, but lose it if you double. An orion equipped for long range is not going to win by doubling at short range, dropping stealth in order to overload disrupters is usually bad against the the things you would be wanting fight at long range in the first place. Doubling doesn't really alter that. If you are at the point where it will work, then it is probably moot as the opponent is probably going to carry on to lose at long range as well. I'm assuming the Orions keeps their drones (you did say drone/disrupter fight).

The D5W has 4 Disr, 6 Ph1s and 2 Ph2s. An Orion BC can have 4 disr, 6 Ph1s. They are the same turn mode, but the D5W has much better non-battery power, and much better arcs. The Orion cannot even maintain speed 24 and fire all of its longer range weapons without doubling. Giving up stealth at longer range is a huge downer. Shifting to phasers rather than disrupters is better energy wise but packs less punch.

The Orion DN is a terrible ship, its closest Klink is a C10. Is badly underpowered compared to the C10. It can have 6 Disr and 8 Ph1s, the C10 has 6 and 12 and 2 Ph2s as well as better arcs. A nice 8 racks also helps a lot as it can maintain full drones much longer as it reloads on the go. Again the Orion has to double to go 24 and shoot everything.

An orion DW compared to an F5 has the same issues, potentially a lot more firepower, but lacking power for it without doubling.#

I'd generally say the orions are a bit better until the larger ships show up. But not that much better, giving up stealth hurts, and lack of labs hurts as well on those burn throughs, especially if you are already taking doubling damage.

As noted, never really looked at the Wyn, quickly looking at the cards, yes they have nice ships up to cruiser level, but no larger ships. The ABC I'm not sure is that good, poor turn mode and no HET! It looks good on many fronts, but I suspect that lack of manouvering will be the death of it in a number of games. The PBB looks quite mean.

Lyrans are just a knacker, they have awesome point blank crunch (usually free on turn of use), and excellent long range. Lyrans (and LDR even more so) are the empire I've never been keen on, as they seem to have so few weaknesses, and it is weaknesses that make empires interesting.

You should compare equivalent BPV ships whenever possible.

The Kzinti DNH (261) is much closer to the C8 (256) point value than the DN (244). 5 pts away rather than 12. The DNH has 6 dis, 11 PH1, 8 drones with double drone control. The C8 has 6 dis, 10 ph1 and 6 drones with single drone control. And the DNH has better arcs to boot! Not to mention tons of PH3 to soak up damage. The DNH can shoot 9 ph1 forward if not centerlined while the C8 can only shoot 6 PH1 if not centered (forward not centered is the most common approach). I think it's the DNH by a blowout.

The BCH (195) has 4 dis, 9 PH1, and 5 drones with 12 control and lots of PH3 to soak up damage. The C7 (192) has 4 dis, 10 PH1 (with worse arcs), and 4 drones with 6 control. The BCH can shoot 7 PH1 forward if not centered while the C7 can only shoot 6. I think the BCH easily wins.

The NCC (160) has 4 dis, 6 PH1, 4 drones with 12 control. The DWL (166) has 4 dis, 6 PH1, 2 drones, better arcs on the dis, but worse on the PH1. The NCC can shoot 5 PH1 forward if not centered while the DWL can shoot 4.

The BC (144) should be compared to the D7C (142) rather than the D5W (148). 4 dis, 4 PH1, 4 drones, and again lots of PH3 to soak damage vs 4 dis, 5 PH1, 2 drones, and thin armor. The BC can shoot 4 PH1 forward if not centered while the Klingon can also shoot 4.

The NCA (140 is significantly better than the D7 (138). It has 4 dis, 4 PH1, and 4 drones vs 4 dis, 3 PH1, and 2 drones). 4 PH1 forward not centered vs 3.

MCC (122) vs D5 (118). MCC has 3 dis, 4 PH1, and 4 drones vs 4 dis, 4 PH1, and 2 drones. The D5 is probably slightly better at long range since it also has better dis arcs, although the MCC is still better against certain opponents due to the extra drones.

In all cases, I don't count PH2 as more than a marginal asset at long (9+) range. They do less damage than the energy you put in! You're generally better off putting extra energy into shield reinforcement or speed than firing one of them at long range.

I think Orions of BC or lower level are significantly better than the Klingon (I agree the BCH and DN are not cost effective). The stealth at long range makes up for fewer weapons due to less power. The BC has 3 less power than the D5W, so let's assume it fires 1 less dis and 1 less PH1. At the 9-15 bracket, that's 3 dis, 5 PH1 or 11 average damage. The D5W firing at the Orion with a +1 shift due to stealth has 4 dis, 6 PH1, or 9 average damage. That's the equivalent of 2 extra PH1! Plus the Orion always has the option of doubling engines and firing overloads while going 24+1 if the opportunity presents itself. Or even doubling engines to repair shields if needed.

The WYN AxC is an amazing ship at 65 pts. It can have 4 dis, 2 ph1, or even 4 HB, 2 PH1. It only has 10 shields, but it has 4 batteries to soak damage and only 1/4 move cost. 2 of these suckers significantly outdamage the average CW or CL at long range and are probably as durable combined.

Once you move beyond tournament (which your argument was doing) I prefer to compare similar ships rather than closet BPV match unless there is a huge difference, e.g. the orion DN.

Comparing an NCA to a D7 makes no sense, the NCA is the equivalent of the D5W. The BC is the D7. DN to DN.

Sure you can can compare closest BPV match, but you are no longer comparing like for like. Then I'm more a campaign player, and less into the fune tuning BPV comparisons and more into like for like hulls. FC really isn't up to differentiating between the minor points difference of the similar ships in a 1 to 1 comparison, so there is no great issue comparing the NCA to D5W.

Neither should you knock those Ph2s, in a long range chase situation you will be struggling to bring forward fire power to bear, those ph2s usually fire out the back. Also in larger actions it is likely you will find one of your ships being picked on so the others may as well fire those ph2s, as they won't be batterying anything.

I think you still have a BPV budget even for campaign games. A Kzinti DNH and Klingon C8 consume roughly the same resources but the DNH is definitely much more effective (at both short and long range). I think comparing like BPV to like BPV is certainly more accurate than comparing similar hull types when dealing with any sort of budget. Otherwise the ISC would clobber any non-Andro if you only compared like hull to like hull. Even if you stick to regular empires, do you really think the Romulan FH and KE should be compared to each other on a straight on basis without adjusting for the fact that the FH is 39 points more?

That depends on the campaign.

Our first long campaign was based around earlier hulls where possible, so there was no such thing as comparing NCAs with CAs etc, you just had CAs to start with. The starting fleets were not based on BPV at all but an equal number of ships of roughly equal hulls. Had it involved Kzinti it would have seen kzniti BCs vs D7s and DN vs C8, CC vs D7C etc.

Our latest campaign is late war, whilst we can take any hulls, no one is taking CAs (D7) over NCAs (D5W) unless there is a real advantage (e.g. the early roms have pl-R). So you probably won't be comparing NCA to D7 or BC to D5W. There is no BPV limit or BPV equality in battles, but there is a ship number limit per battle - so potentially having bigger ships that the other side cannot match is a bonus (Wyn, who aren't in our campaign, potentially suck with that sort of setup, sort of reflecting their strategic limits).

In some cases, like andro, it is hard to classify hulls. Klinks are the same, the F5 is neither a DD nor a FF really.

As to the KE vs FH, I had noted about where there is a large point difference, hence in my earlier post comparing the Orion DN to a DNH, as it outpoints the other DNs we are talking about by a considerable margin. In a 1 vs 1 comparison a 5% difference is nothing much, 10% is possibly a bit large (but I don't have a hard and fast rule on that).

mojo jojo wrote:The WYN AxC is an amazing ship at 65 pts. It can have 4 dis, 2 ph1, or even 4 HB, 2 PH1.

Total side note, but I didn't want to let it pass without comment. The WYN AuxC cannot have 4 HB. In fact it can barely get one. That is true for any non-dist/drone/phaser/ESG weapon in a WYN option mount.

There are infinite potential rules for CGs. It's possible that given some combination of rules that one fleets ships will be matched with other fleet's ships of higher or lower BPV. However I think generally speaking, most CGs of any sort have a budget of some sort. I think it's unfair to compare ships of significantly different BPV if there is a ship of closer BPV for comparison. An exception of course is a specialty ship such as Drone, Scout, or Aegis ships where it's extremely difficult to compare relative effectiveness.

For most ships in FC terms, their mission is similar. Inflict the maximum damage possible on the other side while sustaining minimum damage. In that sense, most ships have the same 'role'. And for that mission and based on a fixed BPV budget, you should compare similar BPV whenever possible. And the Kzinti DNH is better than the C8 and the BCH is better than the C7.

I think a big part of the problem is that BPV was lifted from SFB for the most part and the shift to FC weakened Klingons relative to other Dis/Drone fleets. A major factor being elimination of UIMs (weakens klingons) and wild weasels (makes drones relatively more effective).

mjwest wrote:Total side note, but I didn't want to let it pass without comment. The WYN AuxC cannot have 4 HB. In fact it can barely get one. That is true for any non-dist/drone/phaser/ESG weapon in a WYN option mount.

http://www.starfleetgames.com/federatio ... php?t=3386

According to that Q&A, it appears that WYN AxCs can have 4 HB. Unless it got changed in 6th Ed.

mojo jojo wrote:

mjwest wrote:Total side note, but I didn't want to let it pass without comment. The WYN AuxC cannot have 4 HB. In fact it can barely get one. That is true for any non-dist/drone/phaser/ESG weapon in a WYN option mount.

http://www.starfleetgames.com/federatio ... php?t=3386

According to that Q&A, it appears that WYN AxCs can have 4 HB. Unless it got changed in 6th Ed.

In fact, that is exactly what happened. (5L8) covers what the various option mount choices are. (And, yes, that Q&A probably did have an influence on that.)

mojo jojo wrote:There are infinite potential rules for CGs. It's possible that given some combination of rules that one fleets ships will be matched with other fleet's ships of higher or lower BPV. However I think generally speaking, most CGs of any sort have a budget of some sort. I think it's unfair to compare ships of significantly different BPV if there is a ship of closer BPV for comparison. An exception of course is a specialty ship such as Drone, Scout, or Aegis ships where it's extremely difficult to compare relative effectiveness.

For most ships in FC terms, their mission is similar. Inflict the maximum damage possible on the other side while sustaining minimum damage. In that sense, most ships have the same 'role'. And for that mission and based on a fixed BPV budget, you should compare similar BPV whenever possible. And the Kzinti DNH is better than the C8 and the BCH is better than the C7.

I disagree. Not to say you are wrong, but it is just one way of comparing ships. IMO it is a rather odd comparison as it doesn't match the reality, ships are more likely to face their opposite hull type than their closest BPV match, with a few exceptions (e.g. Roms who are usually a size class down).

That's especially true with the Nxx ships, as even if a campaign doesn't restrict hull types and works off a simple BPV budget then you will still be seeing Nxxs vs Nxxs simply because for most empires they are better for the same reason they are better in a tourney. If Nxxs are restricted then you will see older hulls vs older hulls.

In a campiagn if both sides have only CAs then it is pointless comparing to a ship the other doesn't have rather than the equaivalent one they do have. If Both sides have DNs but no DNHs, or DNHs are on some different production schedule then again it is irrelevant whether a Kzinti DNH is better than a C8, as it is the other DN you are comparing to for campaign purposes.

I agree (and have said twice already) that you wouldn't compare ships of significantly different BPV, but the point difference between the 2 DNs is just 12 points, or 5% of the Kzinti ship, in FedCom terms that is nothing much in a 1 vs 1. The DNH to DN is still 5 points difference. The difference between us is that you seem to see even just a few points as significant.

Even in a tourney where BPV is the all important thing, it is still arguably a somewhat pointless argument, you should compare to what you will meet. Comparing the Kzinti NCA to a D7 or D7C is comparing to something that is fairly rare (most likely the D7 was the last ship that could be fitted in), the klingon is far more likely to be taking D5Ws where possible. You wouldn't compare a Kzinti NCA to a Lyran Tiger - how often do you take a Tiger when you can have a King Jag. The Tiger is only 1 pt different to a Kziniti NCA but it is not what the kzinti NCA is likely to be facing. You certainly wouldn't compare any of the above with a Fed CA - who doesn't take a Fed NCA. The Fed CA is closer to all the other cruisers discussed but is almost unheard of in a tourney. Of course in a tourney 1 vs 1 comparison is not really that useful anyway.

This got me to looking at what klingon fleet I would take in a tourney that was played on a very large (or floating map) map.

The standard Kzinti fleet has been NCA, NCA, NCC I believe, no one takes klingons in the current tourney format. On a quick look at the options I think I'd go C7, D5, D5 (see below for last minute change). It is just in the point range at 428. It could have a D7 instead of a D5 to bring it closer to 450, but I can't see me doing that, a D7 is a bad match to the other 2 ships with its weapon arcs. I might have missed a better combo. I'm not that enamoured of the C7 to be honest, turn mode C is a knacker if you want to fight at range for reasons noted previously.

The kzinti have 12 drones to 8 drones. Edge to the kzinti there. Not sure how much that helps, if 8 drones are not a problem I'm not sure 12 will be in a number of cases. Though it is still obvioulsy an advantage.

Both sides have 12 disrupters, but the Klingon have vastly better arcs. Useful for long range sniping without having to actually point at the other guy. Also very useful if it becomes a turning fight, which is possible.

Kzniti have 14 Ph1s the klingons 18. Arc wise they are similar, they both have some that fire backwards (useful if you need to keep away from the other guy).

Both sides can fire all disr/ph1s and do speed 24. The Kzinti have a slight edge in having an extra power left over. The klingons have the edge in firing more (4 extra Ph1s). The Kzinti may often find it very hard to fire the disrupters though, FA arcs simply suck for long range fighting.



I'm not sure Lyrans would ever be looking to do a long range duel by choice, neither are they a disr/drone fleet (lacking drones). But taking the squadron Patrick won in 2010 with (DNH, DW, DW).

You have 0 drones, 12 disr, 18 ph1s and 8 Ph2s. They have 4 disr with decent arcs, and less Ph1s with good arcs. Power is about the same as the klingon if the fire everything (though like the kinti is very unlikely). Their ESG become useless.

Lyrans are bad at trying to engage by choice in a long range fight. They are, however, excellent at reacting to such.



Orions have 2 BC and a CA I expect, hard to say exactly what weapon combo, as discussed before they struggle on power if they go for the disrupters, but if they don't then they are not really a disrupter/drone fleet anymore. Assume they go all disrupters to match the fleets being compared with.

They have 6 drones, 12 disr, 14 ph1s. They have the worst long range arcs of any fleet, nothing fires backwards, and only 8 ph1s can fire to any side. If you are looking to take a fleet for long range sniping this really is a terrible fleet. The stealth is very nice, but you won't win unless you can shoot the enemy decently as well. They also need to double and lose stealth to go speed 24 and fire everything. An all Ph1 fleet is better (no drones), it can have 12 ph1s firing backwards and a further 8 to a side. Firing 20 ph1s a turn at range whilst hiding under stealth isn't to bad.



Last minute change DWL, DWL, D5 is exactly 450 points. It drops a couple of Ph1s and drones, but adds 8 rear firing Ph2s, and is an all turn mode B fleet, both of which are very useful for long range fighting. I think I prefer this.

Of all the Disr fleets I would take klingons over any others if I was looking to fight at long range. Kzinti are only good against those who struggle with drones, Lyrans are naff, and Orions are only decent if you are not a disrupter fleet at all.

Kzinti and Lyran are both very good at facing off against someone wanting to fight at range (Lyrans being best IMO), as it is more likely they will have less problems with the firing arcs. Then again Klingons are good at that as well.

The Kzinti could switch to the BC, BC, CC squad - that has far better long range fighting arcs, but the power drop hurts a lot.

5% is very significant. It's enough to get plenty of people to change their empire choices in the online tournament. 2% is more balanced. If you just want to use modern ships, then let's compare DNH, BCH, and NCA (596 pts) to C8, C7, D5W (596 pts). A completely equitable matchup of equal point modern ships. The Kzinti have 14 dis, 24 ph1 (20 forward not centered), and 17 drones with up to 28 in the air at once over a turn break. The Klingon has 14 dis, 26 PH1 (16 forward not centered), and 12 drones (16 over a turn break). I think the Kzinti fleet is clearly superior at exactly the same point value, even using your insistance on just modern designs.

As for your sample tournament squadrons, I think you're falling into the trap of assuming only a runaway fire over your shoulder methodology counts as the only long range strategy. In reality, a Kzinti, Orion, or Lyran fleet has many more opportunities that can be exploited to turn around and take the fight to the pursuers because of the threat of drones (it's not just 12 to 8, but 20 to 12 or 14 over a turn break), engine doubling, or an ESG overrun. A simple runaway and snipe doesn't really do a whole lot of damage since even Klingons don't really have a lot of firepower backwards. You still need the threat of something else to make the strategy meaningful.

Incidentally, despite your dismissal of Orions for long range, they do extremely well since they can always double engines and repair 5 or more shields at once as well as battering away damage during the doubling turn. The type of fleets that you would bother with a long range chase (Fed/Hydran fusion/big plasma fleet) don't actually do that much damage at long range, so you're constantly regenerating shields and even the LR has enough repair points to keep the tempo.

As for Lyrans, I am using a long range strategy successfully with 2 NCAs vs an ISC CS plus Rom KE in my PBEM game even on a tournament map.

mojo jojo wrote:5% is very significant. It's enough to get plenty of people to change their empire choices in the online tournament. 2% is more balanced.

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.

A 5% difference on points allowed (in essence that is how the handicap is working), however, may make a big difference if it forces you to choose different and inferior ships. Just as a 7 point difference in allowance would make a difference in a 1 vs 1. There's a big difference between saying are these 2 ships that are 7 points different are a match and saying 1 player cannot take a ship at all (or in a tourney a particular squadron).

e.g. In a 150pt duel pitting a ~140 cruiser against a ~147 cruiser is probably neither here nor there. However declaring a 143 pt duel is, as it precludes the ~147 pt ship (or making the 147 point ship a 154 point ship in a 150 pt fight).


That is not to say a closest BPV comparison is wrong, but neither is mine, in my own experience my take on it is more in tune with reality. Different play styles of course may have given you different experiences. Those into campaign may see things differently to scenario players who may see things differently to tourney players.

As for your sample tournament squadrons, I think you're falling into the trap of assuming only a runaway fire over your shoulder methodology counts as the only long range strategy. ....

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.

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.

Drones can help in preventing the other guy closing too much or soak some of his power/weapons, but they don't help get your FA weapons into arc that much. If you bring your FA weapons into arc then you are struggling to fight at range.

You don't need the threat of something else to make the strategy meaningful - if you are outshooting the other guy at range and can maintain it then why else would you need to do something else. However, you do need the ability to do other stuff if you have to bring FA weapons into arc, as then you may well be forced to fight at closer ranges.

Note with klingons, it is not that they have fire backwards, but to the side as well with the turn mode to minimise any closing, Neither Kzinti, Orions, or Lyrans can fire much out their sides, and Kzinti/Lyran give up an extra hex before they can turn again at speed 24 (be it inwards or outwards).


Drones are nice, but not that realiable.

Incidentally, despite your dismissal of Orions for long range, they do extremely well since they can always double engines and repair 5 or more shields at once as well as battering away damage during the doubling turn. The type of fleets that you would bother with a long range chase (Fed/Hydran fusion/big plasma fleet) don't actually do that much damage at long range, so you're constantly regenerating shields and even the LR has enough repair points to keep the tempo.

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.

As for Lyrans, I am using a long range strategy successfully with 2 NCAs vs an ISC CS plus Rom KE in my PBEM game even on a tournament map.

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.

Klingons can do what you are doing, but they still do badly once they hit the map edge. Delaying a close range pass for 1 turn then being cornered is not really what I see as a long range strategy (even if it is all the tourney map allows). No one is disputing Lyrans are good on the tourney map or that klingons are bad on it.

If we want to talk anecdote though, I've played Kzinti and Klingon against Paul (with Feds), Kzint were floating map, Klinks were fixed, but largish, map.

Kzinti were able to keep the range for however many turns (7-10?) but at several points were unable to keep weapons in arc, which was preventing them keeping up the pressure. Even that was largely due to Paul holding all overloads, he did eventualy drop to 2 standard and 2 overloads per ship, those 2 extra power may well have made the difference had we carried on, it only takes an extra hex or 2 of movement to tilt the balance in that sort of fight. The game was largely about whether Feds could chase down Kzinti with full overloads - having shown they couldn't we didn't carry on.

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.

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).

Orions are good, if they are not a disrupter fleet, but it was the disrupter fleets that the discussion seemed to be about.

storeyelf wrote:

On a quick look at the options I think I'd go C7, D5, D5 (see below for last minute change). It is just in the point range at 428. It could have a D7 instead of a D5 to bring it closer to 450, but I can't see me doing that, a D7 is a bad match to the other 2 ships with its weapon arcs. I might have missed a better combo. I'm not that enamoured of the C7 to be honest, turn mode C is a knacker if you want to fight at range for reasons noted previously.

I haven't played in an actual official tournament, but I have played quite a few games under tournament rules. I've tried the C7 D5 D5 combo a few times, and it mostly gets shot up pretty badly. (I did beat a Gorn squadron with that combo once) The turn mode C issue, is, as you say, a knacker. I've had the most success with a DWL and two D7s. The D7s, having more system boxes and phaser 2s, last a bit longer than a D5W, and given that playing keep away isn't really an option on a closed board, they actually works better for me. I've tried D7C D5W D5W a lot, but for whatever reason have won more games with a pair of D7s. That's not the result I would have expected, but that's how it worked out. It's possible that I was playing better when I used the DWL D7 D7 combo. I started using it after I had more experience of playing Klingons, and more experience with Fedcom generally. So that might account for it. Or not.

Note that I wouldn't actually play Klingons in an official tournament. After extensive experience of playing under tournament rules, I've learned that there are just too many empires that they can't cope with under tournament rules, no way no how. (Feds being at the top of that particular list.)

A DWL and two D5Ws would be an excellent squadron, but it's not obtainable under the 450 point limit. The expanded disruptor arcs are needed on all three ships, but so is turn mode B.

Aye, on a tourney map Klingons are just really really bad. The closed map doesn't allow them to play to their strengths at all. You will face empires whose strengths are exagerated by the map and lose badly.

The extra weapons etc on a D7 may be why you do better on the close map, you are going to get hammered in a close pass, so you may as well forgo to much fancy manouvering and just go for more weapons that kick in at range 3 and extra robustness.

The more I look at it the more I like the DWL, DWL, D5 squad. But it still gets hammered by too many empires on the small map.