Topic: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0

[Drakenred]

Actualy, the folowing ships were techicaly built in the SFB Universe

Romulan
(R4.933) BATTLE EAGLE MEDIUM CARRIER (BEV): ( Quite posibly the worst carrier in the game)

(R4.934) BATTLEHAWK-B DESTROYER LEADER (BHB): Esentualy a conversion of the battlehawks that aparently were converted because they were hevily wrecked

(R4.J5) ROMULAN DOUBLE-HAWK (DBH):Only one produced, a ship that was basiclay only good as a convoy escort if it didnot try to manuver.  Granted, Seeing it come out from under cloak  the first time when you were chasing it probably was a unplesant surprise to most Fed captains http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R4_j5_dbh.gif KING

FALCON HEAVY MAULER (HFA):Basicaly a king Eagle Refit of the Falcon Mauler, A ship subject to the shock rules whenever you fire both the Mauler and the Plasma torps   you can recharge either the mauler or the plasma -F-torps.

(R9.936) SCREECH OWL HEAVY SCOUT (HSC):  it was a partial "King eagle" refit of the Scout eagle. aparently only one built

(R.937) SNIPE-C BATTLE FRIGATE LEADER (SNC): Only one built,

Freighter Ducktails (Added shuttel and/or transporter) and skids ((you can add on "skid" per "cargo pod" on a freighter, the skids come in two flavors, one added 1*P2+ +1 APR + 1 Battery + 1 Transpoter + 1 Lab + 1 tractor the other Adds 1 P2 one APR 1 Heavy ((IE 2 space)shuttle bay and a HTT and three transporter,(the faster to offload cargo suposedly)   are oficial, as was the "overloaded" Small and medium freighters (basicaly more cargo for padding, but slower due to the added weght and were suposedly only used for insystem runs) and "in balast" freighter, (Freightrs with out Cargo pods, faster, but fewer interals due to the lack of cargo pods) (note you cant jetison the cargo pod in a "senario" as the manuvers to undock-drop pods and redocking and intitialising interlocks and stabelising hull integrity feilds and reseting the warp coils aparently took too mutch time.  Aparently Freighers were never around when Cloaking Romulans had to fight cloaking Orion Pirates armed with Plasma torpedoes.

Klingon

(R3.J6) KLINGON DV7 HEAVY CARRIER (DV7): was probagly not built and even if built never saw service
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R3_j6_dv7.gif  

[Bernard Guignard]

Quote:
I'm not entering anything that hasn't been published in a SFB module. (Exception: a few xships)  

Hi Firesoul
Does this mean that we might see Early Years ships  

 
The Old Carrier Rocks

Take Care and be well  

[FireSoul]

I've been thinking about it..  .. but some of the old tech can't be done, and YLAs would need to be decided on. It's not in the works, but maybe one day I can try to enter some of these ships into early era.

[FireSoul]

L-NMC, whom I did not enter myself (don't blame me. ) is incorrect. It has 8 ph1s and 2 ph3s. It's supposed to have 4 ph1s and 2 ph3s. I guess the weapons were copied from the L-NCA.

It will be corrected in the next release.

[FireSoul]

With the introduction of I-CVF and I-CSF (which have 12 fighters, 8 in SFC), which have the 2/3rds fighters rule, the I-CVL, CVLZ, CVLP, CVLS will be corrected to 6 in SFC. They will recieve the appropriate BPV adjustment.
If that wasn't done, the above ships are Sooooo similar, it's stupid.

Also, With the introduction of the I-CVD, the I-CV (and refit variants) will also be corrected back down to OP+ standards. (12 -> 8).


To the ISC who are trying to protect their greener grass:
I am being impartial. Your fighters are NOT inferior to other races'. Also, these changes make utter sence since GSA will mostly remain untouched, while D2 play will be more balanced, especially in the area of technology breakthroughs.

-- Luc


 

[Dogmatix!]

As always....you're welcome to do as you like to your list.  I don't really see too much support for keeping these changes when your list is ported for D2 use, though.

ISC fighters are rather inferior until 2278, IMHO.  The Tort-III (available in 2274, I think) is the first decent fighter they receive and even it isn't that great.


There's never been any movement afoot to adjust ISC fighter numbers, I don't feel it's warranted, but again..it's your list.  Do as you like.  





 

[FireSoul]

Quote:
As always....you're welcome to do as you like to your list.  I don't really see too much support for keeping these changes when your list is ported for D2 use, though.

ISC fighters are rather inferior until 2278, IMHO.  The Tort-III (available in 2274, I think) is the first decent fighter they receive and even it isn't that great.

There's never been any movement afoot to adjust ISC fighter numbers, I don't feel it's warranted, but again..it's your list.  Do as you like.  
 

I know. I don't seem to get much support for anything when it doesn't involve additions (either new ship entries, or new models). *shrug*
.. oh well.. bitterness goes well only with some beers.


My point was .. well.. that with the new entries, the ISC carriers needed a smoothing out.

[jimmi7769]

Quote:

Quote:
As always....you're welcome to do as you like to your list.  I don't really see too much support for keeping these changes when your list is ported for D2 use, though.

ISC fighters are rather inferior until 2278, IMHO.  The Tort-III (available in 2274, I think) is the first decent fighter they receive and even it isn't that great.

There's never been any movement afoot to adjust ISC fighter numbers, I don't feel it's warranted, but again..it's your list.  Do as you like.  
 

I know. I don't seem to get much support for anything when it doesn't involve additions (either new ship entries, or new models). *shrug*
.. oh well.. bitterness goes well only with some beers.


My point was .. well.. that with the new entries, the ISC carriers needed a smoothing out.  

I'd have to agree with the 'Smoothing out' of the ISC carriers.  Seems a little silly to adjust one groups number of fighters per carrier based on fighter strength of a particular era, if that were the case then the Z versions should be reduced as Cav 3's are overmuch.  

As for races with weak fighters getting more of them on their carriers....I don't see any more fighters on Klingon carriers than the other races.  

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:

Quote:
As always....you're welcome to do as you like to your list.  I don't really see too much support for keeping these changes when your list is ported for D2 use, though.

ISC fighters are rather inferior until 2278, IMHO.  The Tort-III (available in 2274, I think) is the first decent fighter they receive and even it isn't that great.

There's never been any movement afoot to adjust ISC fighter numbers, I don't feel it's warranted, but again..it's your list.  Do as you like.  
 

I know. I don't seem to get much support for anything when it doesn't involve additions (either new ship entries, or new models). *shrug*
.. oh well.. bitterness goes well only with some beers.


My point was .. well.. that with the new entries, the ISC carriers needed a smoothing out.  

i'm not saying you're wrong in terms of your project and Mace brings up some good points.  Your list is meant to cater to a multi-platform experience.  It's well-known that it generally can't be taken "as-is" for use in D2 play.

I'm merely trying to point out that I don't think that this change you're doing is something that will end up being used in a future D2 version of your list.  I could be wrong, of course.  I just don't see the change as being all that necessary in D2 play and I'm not sure I've ever seen this discussed as being a hot issue that needed addressing.


I'm not sure I get your menaing about "bitterness."  If you're somehow intimating that I'm bitter, I'd request you check yourself...because you're way off the mark.  If you're bitter, well, I'd say I wish you weren't but that's your issue.  


I reiterate...it's your list..."smooth out" all you like...  


 

[FireSoul]

yeah.. well.

*I*'m bitter.. and trying not to be.  

[Klingon Fanatic]

C'mon Firesoul, release this already. I applaud your HEROIC efforts to distill 20+ years of game rules into a standardized shiplist. You knew going into this folks would have a difference of opinion BUT we needed a GOOD, standardized place to start. I never played SFB so I'm no rules lawyer in this arena to be sure but I do know that your shiplist is a lot of FUN to play. So lets get this thing out the door!  

[FireSoul]

Quote:
C'mon Firesoul, release this already. I applaud your HEROIC efforts to distill 20+ years of game rules into a standardized shiplist. You knew going into this folks would have a difference of opinion BUT we needed a GOOD, standardized place to start. I never played SFB so I'm no rules lawyer in this arena to be sure but I do know that your shiplist is a lot of FUN to play. So lets get this thing out the door!    

Only after SS2.
.. and the MIRV rack testing..  *hint hint*

[Dogmatix!]

I look forward to this testing...it should be fun!

[Corbomite]

Quote:
With the introduction of I-CVF and I-CSF (which have 12 fighters, 8 in SFC), which have the 2/3rds fighters rule, the I-CVL, CVLZ, CVLP, CVLS will be corrected to 6 in SFC. They will recieve the appropriate BPV adjustment.
If that wasn't done, the above ships are Sooooo similar, it's stupid.

Also, With the introduction of the I-CVD, the I-CV (and refit variants) will also be corrected back down to OP+ standards. (12 -> 8).


To the ISC who are trying to protect their greener grass:
I am being impartial. Your fighters are NOT inferior to other races'. Also, these changes make utter sence since GSA will mostly remain untouched, while D2 play will be more balanced, especially in the area of technology breakthroughs.

-- Luc


 

Well if they are soooo similar why include them to replace ships we already have and already like? Why don't you adjust your additions to less fighters instead? No offence FS, but this project started as a means to add SFB ships to the shiplist by "Taldrenizing" them. Now you are making wholesale changes to the Taldren ships that were supposed to be your guide for the new ships. When I first talked to you, you said you weren't going to change Taldren ships, just add more from SFB. What gives?

[The_Infiltrator]

Because, frankly, taldren doesn't even bother to consistenly follow their own rules. Not only that, the shiplist they have is full of errors.

Quick check of ISC carriers, first number fighters it carries in SFB, second number number of fighters in SFC:

CV, CVZ: 12, 12
CVA,CVAZ : 24, 16
CVE, CVEZ: 8, 4
CVL, CVLP, CVLS, CVLZ: 9, 8
CVS, CVSZ: 12, 8


As can be seen here, the fighter numbers using taldren's own rule of thumb for the CV (and variants) and the CVL (and variants) is too high.

As for ISC fighters having problems, it's not Firesoul's fault that taldren inexplicably decided that ISC fighters should not carry the plasma torpedoes that they carry in SFB. Send complaints on this to the game designers, as he has no control over that.

 

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
Because, frankly, taldren doesn't even bother to consistenly follow their own rules. Not only that, the shiplist they have is full of errors.

Quick check of ISC carriers, first number fighters it carries in SFB, second number number of fighters in SFC:

CV, CVZ: 12, 12
CVA,CVAZ : 24, 16
CVE, CVEZ: 8, 4
CVL, CVLP, CVLS, CVLZ: 9, 8
CVS, CVSZ: 12, 8


As can be seen here, the fighter numbers using taldren's own rule of thumb for the CV (and variants) and the CVL (and variants) is too high.

As for ISC fighters having problems, it's not Firesoul's fault that taldren inexplicably decided that ISC fighters should not carry the plasma torpedoes that they carry in SFB. Send complaints on this to the game designers, as he has no control over that.

 

Errr...so you don't think that the statement you make in your very last paragraph has anything to do with the obviously purposeful inconsistency?

It is my assumption that the carriers are they way they are for a reason....a good reason.

[FireSoul]

Guys.. Guys.. I know what I'm doing.

-- Luc

[Kortez]

Quote:

Quote:
With the introduction of I-CVF and I-CSF (which have 12 fighters, 8 in SFC), which have the 2/3rds fighters rule, the I-CVL, CVLZ, CVLP, CVLS will be corrected to 6 in SFC. They will recieve the appropriate BPV adjustment.
If that wasn't done, the above ships are Sooooo similar, it's stupid.

Also, With the introduction of the I-CVD, the I-CV (and refit variants) will also be corrected back down to OP+ standards. (12 -> 8).


To the ISC who are trying to protect their greener grass:
I am being impartial. Your fighters are NOT inferior to other races'. Also, these changes make utter sence since GSA will mostly remain untouched, while D2 play will be more balanced, especially in the area of technology breakthroughs.

-- Luc


 

Well if they are soooo similar why include them to replace ships we already have and already like? Why don't you adjust your additions to less fighters instead? No offence FS, but this project started as a means to add SFB ships to the shiplist by "Taldrenizing" them. Now you are making wholesale changes to the Taldren ships that were supposed to be your guide for the new ships. When I first talked to you, you said you weren't going to change Taldren ships, just add more from SFB. What gives?  

I would like to know this too, because I am concerned about these changes.
 

[The_Infiltrator]

Another thing FS, how about possibly adding SFB bases? WIth all the module configurations (or as many as possible). Leave the current ones and let people decide what they want.  

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
With the introduction of I-CVF and I-CSF (which have 12 fighters, 8 in SFC), which have the 2/3rds fighters rule, the I-CVL, CVLZ, CVLP, CVLS will be corrected to 6 in SFC. They will recieve the appropriate BPV adjustment.
If that wasn't done, the above ships are Sooooo similar, it's stupid.

Also, With the introduction of the I-CVD, the I-CV (and refit variants) will also be corrected back down to OP+ standards. (12 -> 8).


To the ISC who are trying to protect their greener grass:
I am being impartial. Your fighters are NOT inferior to other races'. Also, these changes make utter sence since GSA will mostly remain untouched, while D2 play will be more balanced, especially in the area of technology breakthroughs.

-- Luc


 

Well if they are soooo similar why include them to replace ships we already have and already like? Why don't you adjust your additions to less fighters instead? No offence FS, but this project started as a means to add SFB ships to the shiplist by "Taldrenizing" them. Now you are making wholesale changes to the Taldren ships that were supposed to be your guide for the new ships. When I first talked to you, you said you weren't going to change Taldren ships, just add more from SFB. What gives?  

I would like to know this too, because I am concerned about these changes.
 

Ok. My added ships already have the proper proportion reduction. The Taldren ships, however, do not.
If I was to do it in THEIR way, the CVD(Z) would have 24 fighters or so.  The I-CVF and CSF would have 12. Nuts.

Hence why I want to change the Taldren ships.