Taldren made their dictates. They
are not fair to all.
Taldren could not accurately portray Offensive Pl-D, which probably would have been the only Plasma-race heavy fighter weapon. As they are basically 50% strength Pl-Fs...
As such, Taldren gave us lovely phaser-only fighters. In a perfect world, these fighters would need to close to range 0 in order to deliver an accurate strike. The
best ISC fighter, the Caveat III, carries 2xPh-G & 1-Ph2 FH, Ph-G RX. These fighters, when they fire @ range 4 (outside effective AMD range) average (assuming either LF or RF shot where all the phasers come to bear) 4.8 damage per fighter, with a max of 15 (assuming all 1s and 2s on the Gats, and a 1 for the Ph-2).
Admittedly, these fighters are evil in close, maximum damage of 54 per fighter at range 0. How many Fed / Klink / Mirak fighters, on average, get into range 0, strike, and survive the retreat?
Knowing fighter survivability rates, Taldren intentionally gave the ISC more fighters. It was said so many moons ago.
You seek as close as possible of a SFB translation to SFC as possible in your shiplist. You also claim to keep the Taldren way of doing things. I repeat.
Taldren decreed the ISC is due a higher fighter ratio per carrier than everyone else as ISC fighters have no heavy weapons. They intentionally ignored their 2/3rd fighter rule as we have no heavy weapons.
Your work is excellent. I enjoy your project, and thank you heartily for the time invested. I just question this one decision of yours. In my opinion, by dropping the ISC fighter ratios to the same as everyone elses, you violate your decision of "as close to Taldren's original as possible".
My opinions:
Gamespy pays for these fighters at their declared BPV. D2 pays to carry them, though they are not figured into the force calculations. SP, people can do what they want anyway. By keeping the Original Taldren ISC fighter ratios, which does mean more fighters on the newer carriers, players can restrict themselves to smaller fighter counts themselves, if they wish to. By forcing this reduction down the chain, it prevents the freedom of choice allocated all players since this game came out.
I also admit that fighter adjustments due to other concerns (such as fighter ECM) may be in order. However, as they apply to everyone's fighters, these adjustments should be considered and applied globally. Even if it's a +X BPV per Phaser carried and our fighters shoot up 3-6 BPV each cause they carry so many phasers.
I know it's player tendency to look out for their race. I look at it because people who play one race usually are familiar with both their strengths and weaknesses. As for the ISC, we were understandably upset when we first had to pay for, then lost, (in EAW) one of our SFC advantages in the I-torps. We complained when the change came down, adjusted, and lived with it. I feel many pilots were ready to live with the change to proper SFB limits in OP if it wasn't for the bugs that came with that change. So we live with the higher BPV and price. ISC fighter ratios are balanced by their replacement costs and survivability. Tort III fighters carry 2 Ph-2s each, and 16 of them are about as effective as carrying a 4-pack of K-G2s that can be killed by AMD.
And it costs us about as much for 16 Torts as a K-G2. The Caveat IIIs are just as bad for us. We're paying for fighters that work effectively like Pl-R drones. If a fighter closes to range 0 and unloads everything, it does about as much damage as a Pl-R. And after AMD, phasers, T-bombs etc, they live just about as long as a drone. One pass. And I think it costs us more for a full pack of Caveats than it does a Mirak to load up with all fast drones.
Topic: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0 (Read 97853 times)