Topic: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0

[FireSoul]

Quote:
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.  

Not.. very practical. The only time I know I will encounter a Base is in D2, and it's different at very mission. Refits are good, but variance tends to make things screwy. Also, the Taldren bases have been made differently: a bit stronger.

.. probably to compensate for missing minefields.


I'd like to add X1 versions of bases, but I would need to understand the Taldren style first. (Gats on bases.. yuck)
Think: BSX.. and BTX... scary?

[Corbomite]

Quote:
A *similar*-to-SFB conversion would be to replace 2 batteries with fighterbays, convert *4* shuttlebays to fighterbays, and add the oither 6 fighterbays like in the SFB I-BCV above. This ship would have *2* batteries and *2* shuttles. Be careful.
I call it the CCV. How'd that sound to you?

That would work, although why don't you just swap the batteries for APR? Zero batteries in this game is hardly a handicap, unless your a mauler.

[Julin Eurthyr]

I checked SFCShadow's hint guide.

The only ISC fighters with Gatlings are the III line.  The Writ, Tort and Restitiution III each have one Forward-area Gatling (Usually FH but one's FX).  The Caveat assault fighter, instead of having drones and heavy weapons, gets 3 Gatlings, 2 FH and one RX.

For comparison, the Hydran Wasp III Fighter has 2 Gats FH & 2 Fusions FX.  I'm tempted to say the RX gat may make up for the 2 Fusions...  Fed Raven III, Gat FH, Photon FX (2 rounds), Fighter Dro-1 rack, 4 shots.  The additional 2 Gats make up for the photon & drones...

Personally, I think the entire Assault-III line is rediculously overpowered, whether Wasp, Caveat or Basenji.  Too bad the double-space restrictions never worked right...

You asked for a recommendation to "fix" the 3 Gat Caveats?  Here's a couple, possibly usable to fix the entire "assault" fighter issue, whether feasable or not.

• Enforce the double-space fighter rule across the board.
  
• Weaken all the supposedly double space assault fighters to more reasonable single space loadouts, as they are effectively single space fighters.
  
• Make dedicated heavy carriers, with proper heavy fighter loadouts, restrict the assault fighters to those carriers, and remove them from general purchase.
  
• Adjust BPVs for fighters.  I admit, the way Fighter ECM works makes phasers more powerful.  Any phaser BPV adjustments should be global to all races.
  
• Allow the ISC Phaser-1 pod(s) in lieu of heavy weapons, and adjust the Gatling / remaining phaser loadout to appropriate levels.  Once the ISC gets a "heavy weapon" pod (as fighter phasers are rechargable and SFB Ph-1 pods aren't), loadout reduction is appropriate.  I'd say 1 Ph-1 in place of 2 drones / heavy weapons on comprable fighters is appropriate due to rechargability.  Most ISC fighers would have at most 1 Ph-1, Caveats get 2.  My only concern, how would these Ph-1's work in light of the Fighter ECM issue.  Also, with a "heavy weapon", reduction to the 2/3rd standard is appropriate.
  
• Allow the ISC (who Taldren has hijacking every one else's technology) to shoplift fighter heavy weapons.  Disruptors, Photons, Hellbores, etc.  Again, loadout adjustment and fighter count reduction is appropriate.
  

 

[TOCXOBearslayer]

Umm.... Am I correct in assuming that some of the ISC fighters should have some heavy weapons in SFB?

If so.... can the DroD be substituted in for it?

I have tested it, and the DroD does work with fighters in OP.  

(are DroD even in EaW? I should probably go look)

[Julin Eurthyr]

Yep.  SFB ISC FIghters carry heavy weapons.

The "superiority" fighters carry Pl-D, and the "tactical" fighters carry carrier-rechargable Pl-F.

In SFC, there's no "dogfight" plasma to give the appropriate 50% damage reduction to the superiority fighters (as Pl-D is effectively a 50% strength Pl-F in a drone case), and it has been believed that the Dro-D still is plagued by speed issues (ie, Medium Speed Dro-Ds ignore shields) in both EAW and OP.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Umm.... Am I correct in assuming that some of the ISC fighters should have some heavy weapons in SFB?

If so.... can the DroD be substituted in for it?

I have tested it, and the DroD does work with fighters in OP.  

(are DroD even in EaW? I should probably go look)  

The DroD does work , but there are major issues related to speed.
However! If you Set it right, it can be a unique weapon for just the ISC.

From memory, may be wrong.
The Slow early DroD does 10 points of damage. I think it acts normally.
The Med DroD does 10 points of damage, but ignores shields! (bad)
The Fast DroD does 20 points of damage and is envelopping! (wtf!)


What we could do is have 1 such weapon on the fighters, no reloads. The fighter would appear in LATE ONLY. I would think that about 2281 (18) is good, in response to PFs. Its *UNIQUE* weapon would be the EPT DroD.

I played with this in the past. It's nice. I Called them the Satane.IIIs or something. (heee)
-- Luc

[Julin Eurthyr]

That may be a workable idea.

the things about those EPT Dro-Ds would be that they do approx. 2 damage to each shield.  If they are somewhat effective (on the order of other fighter weapons), then I'd agree to a re-make of ISC fighters where we get these at appropriate levels (ie, lighter fighters get 1, heavier fighters get 2), with a couple of reloads (2) like fighter drones have.  

As far as unique weapons go, this definitely sounds like a workable idea, I may have to try this sometime to see how effective this  really is...

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
Good post Julin..

.. however this campaign hasn't convinced me that ISC fighters with so many gatlings are inferior. Suggestions?  

You're right...you know why?  Because we're using Taldren's model of the fighter loadout conversion for the ISC CVLs and CVs--- not yours.  


 

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:

Quote:
A *similar*-to-SFB conversion would be to replace 2 batteries with fighterbays, convert *4* shuttlebays to fighterbays, and add the oither 6 fighterbays like in the SFB I-BCV above. This ship would have *2* batteries and *2* shuttles. Be careful.
I call it the CCV. How'd that sound to you?

That would work, although why don't you just swap the batteries for APR? Zero batteries in this game is hardly a handicap, unless your a mauler.  

I liked it much better when we were talking about giving more power to the I-BCV and just leaving it with it's 8 fighters (like everyone elses BCV).


I'd agree that doing without batteries and adding 4xAPR is something that won't trouble an ISC captain.  As others have said, I think many of us are flying carriers is because the I-BCV is such a complete waste of time.  On LB4, even adding two power (for total of 42) helped, but still wasn't great.  Take 11% of the warp power on most ships and you end up with a decided POS, Caveat-IIIs notwithstanding.





 

[Corbomite]

Quote:
(for total of 44)

Check yer math Rover!  

[Dogmatix!]

Funny...I was thinking "44 power" in general as ideal and ended up typing it instead of "42"....corrected.  



 

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
A *similar*-to-SFB conversion would be to replace 2 batteries with fighterbays, convert *4* shuttlebays to fighterbays, and add the oither 6 fighterbays like in the SFB I-BCV above. This ship would have *2* batteries and *2* shuttles. Be careful.
I call it the CCV. How'd that sound to you?

That would work, although why don't you just swap the batteries for APR? Zero batteries in this game is hardly a handicap, unless your a mauler.  

I liked it much better when we were talking about giving more power to the I-BCV and just leaving it with it's 8 fighters (like everyone elses BCV).


I'd agree that doing without batteries and adding 4xAPR is something that won't trouble an ISC captain.  As others have said, I think many of us are flying carriers is because the I-BCV is such a complete waste of time.  On LB4, even adding two power (for total of 42) helped, but still wasn't great.  Take 11% of the warp power on most ships and you end up with a decided POS, Caveat-IIIs notwithstanding.

 

The ship must have batteries.  

[Julin Eurthyr]

I have to go on record as stating that as much as it sucks, the SFB I-BCV does have only 40 power.  As such is the nature of the SSD, Firesoul did the right thing in translating it as shown.  I have no complaint with that.

If it hasn't already been done, could someone please split the PPDs onto 2 hardpoints on that ship so we could at least shut off the extra PPD when not needed?  The nature of the SSD and EA form allows me to charge only 1 PPD at a time and maintain a much more mobile rate of speed.  I would also ask the same of the I-CC_, ICVS_, and I-CS_, as those are the only ships without single PPDs for power control.  If it isn't done globally (as the twinned hardpoint is Taldren's intent), at least do it to help out the BCV.  I thank you for your consideration.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
I have to go on record as stating that as much as it sucks, the SFB I-BCV does have only 40 power.  As such is the nature of the SSD, Firesoul did the right thing in translating it as shown.  I have no complaint with that.

If it hasn't already been done, could someone please split the PPDs onto 2 hardpoints on that ship so we could at least shut off the extra PPD when not needed?  The nature of the SSD and EA form allows me to charge only 1 PPD at a time and maintain a much more mobile rate of speed.  I would also ask the same of the I-CC_, ICVS_, and I-CS_, as those are the only ships without single PPDs for power control.  If it isn't done globally (as the twinned hardpoint is Taldren's intent), at least do it to help out the BCV.  I thank you for your consideration.  

Oh. That's been done. I went through the shiplist and did it anywhere I could for the ISC.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Quote:

Quote:
I have to go on record as stating that as much as it sucks, the SFB I-BCV does have only 40 power.  As such is the nature of the SSD, Firesoul did the right thing in translating it as shown.  I have no complaint with that.

If it hasn't already been done, could someone please split the PPDs onto 2 hardpoints on that ship so we could at least shut off the extra PPD when not needed?  The nature of the SSD and EA form allows me to charge only 1 PPD at a time and maintain a much more mobile rate of speed.  I would also ask the same of the I-CC_, ICVS_, and I-CS_, as those are the only ships without single PPDs for power control.  If it isn't done globally (as the twinned hardpoint is Taldren's intent), at least do it to help out the BCV.  I thank you for your consideration.  

Oh. That's been done. I went through the shiplist and did it anywhere I could for the ISC.  

Thank you.  That will at least help out a few ships.  I wasn't sure if that was new as my current CCY only has the one twinned hardpoint...
 

[Corbomite]

Of all the options presented I like the CCV idea the best.

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I have to go on record as stating that as much as it sucks, the SFB I-BCV does have only 40 power.  As such is the nature of the SSD, Firesoul did the right thing in translating it as shown.  I have no complaint with that.

If it hasn't already been done, could someone please split the PPDs onto 2 hardpoints on that ship so we could at least shut off the extra PPD when not needed?  The nature of the SSD and EA form allows me to charge only 1 PPD at a time and maintain a much more mobile rate of speed.  I would also ask the same of the I-CC_, ICVS_, and I-CS_, as those are the only ships without single PPDs for power control.  If it isn't done globally (as the twinned hardpoint is Taldren's intent), at least do it to help out the BCV.  I thank you for your consideration.  

Oh. That's been done. I went through the shiplist and did it anywhere I could for the ISC.  

Thank you.  That will at least help out a few ships.  I wasn't sure if that was new as my current CCY only has the one twinned hardpoint...
 

I did it a few nights ago at the first request I got. So.. obviously not in SS2 .. because it's not released material yet.

[Dogmatix!]

Julin...I am well aware that the I-BCV as presented in FS' list is as accurate to SFB as it can be (assuming the fighter loadout conversion).  That doesn't make it any less fo a dog, though...heheh.



Whatever...as I said, anything a campaign design group doesn't like will get changed, anyway.


 

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
Of all the options presented I like the CCV idea the best.  

I'm in agreement.

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Quote:
Of all the options presented I like the CCV idea the best.  

I'm in agreement.  

Glad to hear it, because that carrier will still have its weaknesses:
.. having only 2 shuttlebays on a carrier will really hurt you..