Topic: restricted ships  (Read 12668 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Gook

  • Catbert
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 405
  • Gender: Male
restricted ships
« on: August 07, 2004, 10:58:28 am »
Something which came out of the other threads was the question of restricted ships.

As I understand it Commando, Escorts and Tugs are restricted.  Some say this is to stop PP farmers (Commando), not sure why escorts are or tugs other than the later take up room in the yards for more "desirable" ships.

On the question of PP farming, well I can't say it bothers me (opinion), but it does restrict out some ships which may aid some races in the "flipping" war. Can this be reconsidered?

So far as the Escorts are concerned I'm not sure why.

Tugs take up space, but then in a world with an OOB they would, and just might make the "desirable" ships rarer (as many should be if you want OOBs). Everyone who wants one will get one eventually of course, but may have to wait a bit longer and if lost may have to wait again.

So what is the "raison d'etre" behind the restrictions and should it be reconsidered.

Linked to this is the fleet position, many in the fleet thread would not mind flleets with CnC, but if escorts are restricted out you can't have a CV with it's legitimate escorts.

Thoughts please.

KAT-Gook, OBS,OoW,MTA,SoK.
KAT-Fleet
Kzinti Hegemony

The God of War hates those who hesitate
.....Eurypides



Offline GDA-S'Cipio

  • Brucimus Maximus
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5749
  • Gender: Male
  • If I took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2004, 02:23:58 pm »

So far as the Escorts are concerned I'm not sure why.

Game logic.  Escorts put a lot of ultra-expensive hardware on a small hull, which makes them highly desireable to players -- often for both hex flipping AND PvP roles.

In the source material it made sense to put that much expensive hardware on a fragile hull because their job was to protect a valuable fleet asset.  In this game, where fleet assets and escorts fly around by themselves, it starts to look a lot less like logical design and a lot more like cheese.

Escorts in SFC  break down the willing suspension of disbelief and make the game experience less enjoyable.

At least that's the story on  the Western side.  On the eastern side, where plas-D doesn't get the offensive power it is supposed to have, escorts just suck and so no one misses them.

-S'Cipio
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."  - James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)

-----------------------------------------
Gorn Dragon Alliance member
Gorn Dragon Templar
Coulda' used a little more cowbell
-----------------------------------------


Offline Green

  • I'm not a
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3004
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2004, 02:34:17 pm »
IF player fleets are allowed, then escorts could go unrestricted and controlled by OOB.  "You can only have an escort in your fleet if you have a carrier as the flagship for your fleet.  See rule X.x for a list of approved escorts and the carriers they can fly with."

I don't mind servers w/ player fleets (2 or even 3-ship fleets) and have gladly played on them.
I don't mind servers that only allow 1 ship per player and have gladly played on them too.

Player fleets allowed or not allowed really doesn't matter to me, I'd play on either, my guess is many others would too.

Offline KAT J'inn

  • CFO - Kzinti War Machine, Inc.
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2294
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2004, 02:50:12 pm »
Well I was going to start a thread on this subject but looky here . .  .



Escorts . . .  General War 3 - 6.

How about unrestricting all the escorts??    What say you??

Since we have the disengagement rule would it be so bad?


 . . .

Also,  Laflin is overseas and can't play so I really think we should allow the NEC+  <ooooh I'm going to hell for that one. Man, I need a smoke after that!>


Offline GDA-S'Cipio

  • Brucimus Maximus
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5749
  • Gender: Male
  • If I took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2004, 02:58:44 pm »
Well I was going to start a thread on this subject but looky here . .  .



Escorts . . .  General War 3 - 6.

How about unrestricting all the escorts??    What say you??

Since we have the disengagement rule would it be so bad?


With solo ships, I'd really really rather not.  When one of those monsters loaded with AMD and gatlings and drones bounces a line ship out of the hex we may find that the disengagement rule exacerbates the escort problem rather than fixing it.

Things will get worse as the Romulans get into the war.  The G-rack got split into two systems while the plas-D got neutered by being defense only.  Fed escorts will be much more useful against the pointy ears than the Roms will be against the Feds.  Besides, some of those gatling escorts are just plain mean.

-S'Cipio
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."  - James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)

-----------------------------------------
Gorn Dragon Alliance member
Gorn Dragon Templar
Coulda' used a little more cowbell
-----------------------------------------


Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2004, 03:01:18 pm »
Solo escorts are cheese.   This game does not need more cheese, it needs less.

A fair and balanced shiplist for D2 needs MORE ships removed, not more OTT crap added.
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline KBF-Crim

  • 1st Deacon ,Church of Taldren
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12271
  • Gender: Male
  • Crim,son of Rus'l
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2004, 03:18:30 pm »
Solo escorts are cheese.   This game does not need more cheese, it needs less.

A fair and balanced shiplist for D2 needs MORE ships removed, not more OTT crap added.
:banghead:

Offline Gook

  • Catbert
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 405
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2004, 04:17:14 pm »
Solo escorts are cheese.   This game does not need more cheese, it needs less.

A fair and balanced shiplist for D2 needs MORE ships removed, not more OTT crap added.

Not entirely sure I understand why this is.

BCHs for example would be more complex to build, more costly and a lot rarer than cheap hulled FF/DD/CL E's regardless of the "systems" in them.

The usual wet navy comparisons show very few BCs (real ones what we call BCHs) and lots of "Escorts" whether they be AA, AS, or GP.

Anyhow in the average single player game, mano a mano, the BCH or even CC shouldn't have a problem, its only us dumb cheesy droners who really need fear all those ADDs and PGs.

Variety is the spice and all that.

What about Commando ships?

Tugs well there are rather a lot, say they were pared down to TUG-A, BT and CVT?
KAT-Gook, OBS,OoW,MTA,SoK.
KAT-Fleet
Kzinti Hegemony

The God of War hates those who hesitate
.....Eurypides



Offline Laflin

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2004, 04:22:23 pm »
Well I was going to start a thread on this subject but looky here . .  .



Escorts . . .  General War 3 - 6.

How about unrestricting all the escorts??    What say you??

Since we have the disengagement rule would it be so bad?


 . . .

Also,  Laflin is overseas and can't play so I really think we should allow the NEC+  <ooooh I'm going to hell for that one. Man, I need a smoke after that!>



You, Sir, are a furry Bastard! <spoken in a Harry Mudd voice> ;D  As far as escorts being cheese, I disagree <surprise>, but I always flew 'em close in, giving plenty of opportunities to kill me.  The mediocre power, turn rates and especially the crappy HET% IMO more than balanced out any supposed "cheese" factor.  DH, ask any of the old Klinks how cheesily I flew the F-NEC when I did fly it, back when only 2 of the 4 gats fired.  The power consumption should be even worse now that that bug has been taken care of.

Offline Father Ted

  • Starfleet Chaplain-Recalled to Active Duty
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1356
  • Next to Ted Williams in the freezer
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2004, 05:12:55 pm »
Well I was going to start a thread on this subject but looky here . .  .



Escorts . . .  General War 3 - 6.

How about unrestricting all the escorts??    What say you??

Since we have the disengagement rule would it be so bad?


 . . .

Also,  Laflin is overseas and can't play so I really think we should allow the NEC+  <ooooh I'm going to hell for that one. Man, I need a smoke after that!>



J'inn you bastard! I paid you enough to sneak the F-NEC+ in while nobody was looking. What's this turning around and announcing it on the forums? I want my money back!!! ;)

Captain: USS Majestik Moose NCC-1712


"Live as brave men; and if fortune is adverse, front its blows with brave hearts." -Cicero
"Superman wears Jack Bauer jammies."-Anonymous
"Better to fight for something than live for nothing." -George S. Patton

Offline C-Los

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 436
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2004, 06:34:15 pm »
I've always found that, the more "TOYS" I have to play with, the more "FUN" I have !!

   MHO....... :brickwall:
C-Los, Commanding Officer U.S.S. Scorpion




"Life is short, have fun and enjoy !"

Offline KBF-Dogmatix_XC

  • Pimpmaster General
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2004, 07:28:41 pm »
Solo escorts are cheese.   This game does not need more cheese, it needs less.

A fair and balanced shiplist for D2 needs MORE ships removed, not more OTT crap added.



Err...is this why you're trying so hard to get PFs into the game?   heheh...not enough drones, rfighters and PFs in the game?   ;)



Just givin' ya a hard time, DH. 
Dogmatix, XC, KBF
yo' aj, Klingon Black Fleet
Director, XenoCorp Tactics and Strategy Division
DGA Board of Directors
SFC2.Net Administrator

Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2004, 07:51:15 pm »
Escorts:

The Klink / Mirak escorts (uber-AMD boats that kill a drone ship) aren't extremely bad, except against say a Mirak or another drone boat...

The Fed Gatling-phaser using escorts, with like 4 Ph-G and 5 drones (almost enough to make them a flying-scatterpack) are what I remember starting this whole anti-escort stuff first...

I believe the rationale for restricting Federation ship-gatling phasers to the escorts only is due to the cost to procure one and the hencefore limited supply of Gats were best used in an anti-fighter / anti-drone carrier defense role, not as an offensive weapon for an escort to pounce on and gut line cruisers repeatedly...

Now, I'm not adverse to letting gatling-phaser escorts actually escort the carriers they're supposed to.  People want to fly an escort, fine.  Just make it a rule that while in an escort, they can't initiate a single mission, and must strive at all times to be drafted by the carrier they're escorting.  But as long as they can be flown solo, out of their limited purpose, the sheer volume of Gatling phaser firepower available (on a par with a pair of cheesy Caveat IIIs), is somewhat, at least still IMO, unbalancing, and would need a BPV / cost increase to say BCH or so if flown solo.  Adjustable in the future, but I think we tried CWs at CA prices and it wasn't painful enough to deter frequent use a couple of servers ago...

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline Rod ONeal

  • D.Net Beta Tester
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3592
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2004, 07:54:45 pm »
Solo escorts are cheese.   This game does not need more cheese, it needs less.

A fair and balanced shiplist for D2 needs MORE ships removed, not more OTT crap added.

Not entirely sure I understand why this is.

BCHs for example would be more complex to build, more costly and a lot rarer than cheap hulled FF/DD/CL E's regardless of the "systems" in them.

The usual wet navy comparisons show very few BCs (real ones what we call BCHs) and lots of "Escorts" whether they be AA, AS, or GP.

Anyhow in the average single player game, mano a mano, the BCH or even CC shouldn't have a problem, its only us dumb cheesy droners who really need fear all those ADDs and PGs.

Variety is the spice and all that.

What about Commando ships?

Tugs well there are rather a lot, say they were pared down to TUG-A, BT and CVT?


There's a couple of reasons not too many were built. 1, They are specialized ships. They are not as well rounded as the standard designs. 2, Some of their systems are more expensive and/or just more limited. Ship Ph-G's are not standard equipment for any races except the Hydrans (and LDR). The Aegis system (not represented in SFC) is a much more advanced (expensive) sensor and targeting system (Allows for targeting up to 4X/Impulse instead of only once like regular line ships.) There's also the extra personnel and equipment to service ftrs (Again, not represented in SFC.). 3, They weren't the only variants needed. Scouts, Drone ships, command variants, carriers, etc... were also needed. There simply would not have been enough hulls and parts to build all of the escorts that some people want to use. IIRC only 1 F-NEC was built as an escort for the CVA Napoleon.
If Romulans aren't cowards, then why do they taste like chicken?

Offline KBF-Dogmatix_XC

  • Pimpmaster General
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2004, 07:55:03 pm »
I think restricting escorts makes more sense than restricting tugs and commando ships.  Heck...I don't get the commando ship thing at all...never have.


Dogmatix, XC, KBF
yo' aj, Klingon Black Fleet
Director, XenoCorp Tactics and Strategy Division
DGA Board of Directors
SFC2.Net Administrator

Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2004, 08:31:51 pm »
From what I remember, the Commando ship issue was 2-fold:

1.  Commando ship steals AI ally, then uses ally against player
2.  Commando ship captures player's ship out from underneath them, then uses the player's own ship against the AI to finish the mission

Basically, too many people were having their ship captured out from underneath them before their weapons had a chance to blow up the commando ship...

(they also used cheesy excuses like the commando ship's time in such interesting missions as convoy raid, the stereotypical PP-farming mission to help them get restricted...)

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2004, 08:47:58 pm »
Solo escorts are cheese.   This game does not need more cheese, it needs less.

A fair and balanced shiplist for D2 needs MORE ships removed, not more OTT crap added.



Err...is this why you're trying so hard to get PFs into the game?   heheh...not enough drones, rfighters and PFs in the game?   ;)



Just givin' ya a hard time, DH. 

Got me there, guitly.   I'll stay out of this one  ;D
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline KBF-Dogmatix_XC

  • Pimpmaster General
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2004, 09:02:06 pm »
From what I remember, the Commando ship issue was 2-fold:

1.  Commando ship steals AI ally, then uses ally against player
2.  Commando ship captures player's ship out from underneath them, then uses the player's own ship against the AI to finish the mission

Basically, too many people were having their ship captured out from underneath them before their weapons had a chance to blow up the commando ship...

(they also used cheesy excuses like the commando ship's time in such interesting missions as convoy raid, the stereotypical PP-farming mission to help them get restricted...)



Awwww...some poor commando ship picked on some player silly enough to get within transporter distance (and allow the commando ship to survive)?

  :D


I still don't get the fuss.  I gotta be honest...if i'm flying just about anything of realtively equal class to a D6G, I'm glad that guy has a D6G, cuz he's gonna die.  Of course, the D6G isn't a very impressive commando ship.  Other races have better. 

AI capturing happens anyway...the absence of commando ships doesn't do much to prevent that.  In fact, player capturing happens anyway...heheh.


Dogmatix, XC, KBF
yo' aj, Klingon Black Fleet
Director, XenoCorp Tactics and Strategy Division
DGA Board of Directors
SFC2.Net Administrator

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2004, 09:08:27 pm »
Yeah Doggy, I was wondering how the Commando ship got their shields down in the first place.  ;)

Offline KBF-Dogmatix_XC

  • Pimpmaster General
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2004, 09:27:09 pm »
My point exactly...  :D


Dogmatix, XC, KBF
yo' aj, Klingon Black Fleet
Director, XenoCorp Tactics and Strategy Division
DGA Board of Directors
SFC2.Net Administrator

Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2004, 09:49:05 pm »
Yep Dogmatix...

Those silly commando ships picked on too many players... 8)

Take a D6G:

88 marines, 9 transporters with which to put them on with...

7 Ph-2s, rear-firing, that can probably knock out a shield at range 0 with an aft-fire after an overrun.

From that point, 35 power allows the Klink to phaserboat at speed 31, using Klingon maneuverability to stay on that downed shield.

Within 4 turns, there's going to probably be 36 Klingon marines on the enemy ship.  Many CAs top off at 32 marines, so it's 4 turns (2 photon charge cycles or just a little over a Plasma charge cycle...) to kill the enemy before inevitable capture sets in...

With doubled internals, show me a CA that can severely cripple, if not outright destroy, that D6G in 2 minutes once the line ship loses a shield.  Often times, that's all ilt takes for a line CA to effectively lose their ship.  Of course, there may be a couple more turns while the marines fight it out, but at that point the commando pilot floors it out of dodge and let's the marines do the work...

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2004, 09:50:58 pm »
Commando ships WERE cheesy when people could use them to get 25,000 PP in and hour running shiyard defense missions.  

This is not the case anymore as the stock Taldren mission have gone bye-bye, maybe they could make a comeback?
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline KBF-Dogmatix_XC

  • Pimpmaster General
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2004, 09:56:43 pm »
Yep Dogmatix...

Those silly commando ships picked on too many players... 8)

Take a D6G:

88 marines, 9 transporters with which to put them on with...

7 Ph-2s, rear-firing, that can probably knock out a shield at range 0 with an aft-fire after an overrun.

From that point, 35 power allows the Klink to phaserboat at speed 31, using Klingon maneuverability to stay on that downed shield.

Within 4 turns, there's going to probably be 36 Klingon marines on the enemy ship.  Many CAs top off at 32 marines, so it's 4 turns (2 photon charge cycles or just a little over a Plasma charge cycle...) to kill the enemy before inevitable capture sets in...

With doubled internals, show me a CA that can severely cripple, if not outright destroy, that D6G in 2 minutes once the line ship loses a shield.  Often times, that's all ilt takes for a line CA to effectively lose their ship.  Of course, there may be a couple more turns while the marines fight it out, but at that point the commando pilot floors it out of dodge and let's the marines do the work...


Erm...phaserboat....with Ph2s?  With those arcs?  I'm not even sure Madelf could do that...heheh.





Dogmatix, XC, KBF
yo' aj, Klingon Black Fleet
Director, XenoCorp Tactics and Strategy Division
DGA Board of Directors
SFC2.Net Administrator

Offline FVA_C_ Blade_ XC

  • Forum Czar
  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 55845
  • Gender: Male
  • Yep,I did it.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2004, 10:03:39 pm »
Problem is you get some wanker with a dial-up flying a fleet and viola.

I agree with DH less cheese is good!
FVA_C_Blade_XC
XenoCorp Fleet Operations
www.xenocorp.net
ISC Race Moderator
Visioneer
S.S.Blade


See Wade,See Wade post like an arse,See Wade get banned.
Dont be a Wade!

Offline GDA-S'Cipio

  • Brucimus Maximus
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5749
  • Gender: Male
  • If I took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #24 on: August 08, 2004, 01:33:28 am »



Cool picture, Corbo.

-S'Cipio
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."  - James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)

-----------------------------------------
Gorn Dragon Alliance member
Gorn Dragon Templar
Coulda' used a little more cowbell
-----------------------------------------


Offline GDA-S'Cipio

  • Brucimus Maximus
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5749
  • Gender: Male
  • If I took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2004, 01:37:17 am »


To be sure, I do not have the same objection to commando ships that I do to escorts.  I suspect a great many were built for planetary raids and invasions, since planets are the prize of the war.  Also they aren't very expensive so far as shipbuilding goes; you just load them up with war's cheapest hardware.  (Infantry!)  I've certainly never found them to be cheesey.

-S'Cipio
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."  - James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)

-----------------------------------------
Gorn Dragon Alliance member
Gorn Dragon Templar
Coulda' used a little more cowbell
-----------------------------------------


Offline Gook

  • Catbert
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 405
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2004, 03:24:15 am »
Hmmmmm even in SFB Gatling's are common as muck, F-14s, F-15s, and the most common fighter of all F-16s not to mention others. No good saying it's a fighter variant it still does the same damage put those on ships. FF/DD/CL hulls are mass produced, CC and BCH hulls are not they are much More costly, have way bigger crews, and more specialisms on one ship.

Escorts are used not just for CVAs although the NAC style ones will be reserved for that, but convoy, fleet and patrols duties especially the smaller FF/DD hulls.

Now with the current players are there many who think the Escort is going to take out the CC/BCH! If Squiggy were here you may have an argument, but he is not.

Commando ships, well I disagree with Dog the D6G is not good, its bloody marvelous!( 9 trannies is usually one more than the defendingship has Marines) but seriously if anyone in PvP, in the ships many fly allow themselves to be "captured" by a D6G, don't you think the quodos should go to the D6 pilot or whatever Commando ship! capturing a CC or BCH piloted by a player in an old ship by boarding would be so cool. As for PP farming, what the hell difference does it make if you have a Gazillion PP, there are only so many ships, bases etc you can lay down, and while farming the player is usually out of the action. Lets face it we all farm to get the ships we want just to a lesser extent.

No one has mentioned Tugs. Have they ever been used in a campaign? What are the views
KAT-Gook, OBS,OoW,MTA,SoK.
KAT-Fleet
Kzinti Hegemony

The God of War hates those who hesitate
.....Eurypides



Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2004, 08:59:12 am »
Commando ships, well I disagree with Dog the D6G is not good, its bloody marvelous!( 9 trannies is usually one more than the defendingship has Marines) but seriously if anyone in PvP, in the ships many fly allow themselves to be "captured" by a D6G, don't you think the quodos should go to the D6 pilot or whatever Commando ship! capturing a CC or BCH piloted by a player in an old ship by boarding would be so cool. As for PP farming, what the hell difference does it make if you have a Gazillion PP, there are only so many ships, bases etc you can lay down, and while farming the player is usually out of the action. Lets face it we all farm to get the ships we want just to a lesser extent.

No one has mentioned Tugs. Have they ever been used in a campaign? What are the views

I don't think kudos are really deserving to the commando pilot.

Consider this:

1.  7 Ph-2s, all 7 fire directly out the rear centerline.  At range 0, those 7 Ph-2s are enough to knock down any CL or smaller's shield, and on a decent roll enough to scrap most CAs rear shields.  If not, the 3 forward Ph-2s in a shot or 2 can finish the job.
2.  Maneuverability class B, along with 35 power, means the D6Gs probably going to fly 31, trickle charging phasers.  If the enemy's not doing 31, they can slow down and put up some ECM / reinforcement.  Once they're in range, the speed / maneuverability advantages of this ship are going to let him dictate what shield and range he's going to stay at (which is probably 5-5.99 on the hurt / down shield.  Counter strategy is to phaserboat yourself, doing speed 31 to keep the enemy outside of the magic range.  It takes a while of phaserboating to weaken the commando ship enough to be able to kill him in the 2-minute window at close range...
3.  In SFCs double internal environment, the D6Gs barely going to feel the first alpha strike, and, if he does take a second one, is going to be mildly hurt, not severely crippled and basically ineffective like it would be in SFB.
4.  Once the shield is down, the D6G's putting 36 marines (more than just about anyone's CA carries) in 2 minutes, and can dump enough marines to cap just about any ship in the game within 3 minutes (6 turns).  At that point, the D6G's taking off out of effective range of all weapons and letting the clock run on the enemy ship.

Therefore, in the hands of even a mildly experienced pilot, the commando boat is quite a lethal weapon, as it can take damage (don't forget the barracks are hit on hull, doubled internals, and do not automatically kill off 10 marines with each blown up box...), can effectively kill most any ship in 2-3 minutes of engagement without relying on actual weapons, and, outside of Klink / Hydran / Lyran, all commando boats are armed with Ph-1s, not Ph-2s...

From what I remember (as I was thankfully not the victim of a commando boat myself), this was par for the course / SOP from just about any race's commando boat.

Tugs, on the other hand, have only been flown for "novelty" so far.  They are quite powerful ships, but oftentimes much slower / less maneuverable than an equivalent counterpart.  I don't know if they would be flown as cheese if left unrestricted, as most admins have been keeping them off the lists for now...

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline Hexx

  • Sexy Shoeless Lyran God Of War
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 6058
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2004, 09:26:13 am »
Actually Julin (imho) yer really off base with the commando boats.
Sure the D6G can crack a shield with it's 7 Ph2's, but anyone who doesn't also crack the D6's shield shoulsn't be flying.
Or of course the guy could wait until the D6 drops a shield then really pound him.
Then the other guy should just pound the D6 -if he is trying to Phaserboat at 31 he's got no real power for reinforcement/tractors/ or  ECM.
And even against a ship with 24 marines it's going to take him quite awhile to whittle them down.
first pass - beam over 9 (against 24) probably lose one on beam over and by the time you recycle your going to have  4, maybe 5 left, another 9 says maybe 14 against 22 if you're lucky, then recycle and another 9 makes it 20 or 21 against 22 then on the fourth turn you've got him.If not you should on the 5th.
Of course that assumes no transporters lost during the pounding you're going to be taking at range 5 (or less) .

I really don't care if commando boats are restricted or not, they are good against AI but theres no real chance of them winning a PvP against a breathing opponent unless they're used against a <much> smaller ship.
Courageously Protesting "Lyran Pelt Day"

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2004, 09:36:17 am »
Tugs were in one campaign, but they were showing up in every mission because of the number of variants. Not only was it "unrealistic", it was boring fighting Tugs every mission, so they were restrricted.



If you like that one Scippy, check this one out.


Offline KAT J'inn

  • CFO - Kzinti War Machine, Inc.
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2294
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2004, 12:41:20 pm »
Excuse me for barging in but I have a bit of business to do.

For the record . . .

This entire Escorts issue is Krueg's fault.

Thank you.   Carry on.


<skampers off>

 

Offline Gook

  • Catbert
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 405
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2004, 01:22:15 pm »
When it comes down to PvP if you are in a CCZ, G-BCH, KRC( I never get this one right but the bugger with 10,000 p1s is the one I mean :) ), BCF, BCHPP+, Z-BCH, or OV, would you rather face a C7 or a D6G? (insert other variants for each race as applicable)?

Neither Commandos or Escorts should hold any terrors for a BCH pilot, Tugs maybe, but probably not. So far as Tugs in lists are concerned just restrict them to 3 types (not too concerned about Tugs), but I really can't see any reason for restricting escorts or Commandos. The only ones which might give slight concern are the FED DE line, but even then PGs are not much use above range 3ish, so don't close. Drone boats hate them with a vengence, plasma may too but not as much, but apart from that, no fermented milk products in sight.
KAT-Gook, OBS,OoW,MTA,SoK.
KAT-Fleet
Kzinti Hegemony

The God of War hates those who hesitate
.....Eurypides



Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #32 on: August 08, 2004, 04:08:00 pm »
Hexx:

Between actual Hull hits, Cargo, and Barracks, all of which are, in SFC, basically "Hull Hits", the D6G can absorb 42 internals without breaking a sweat or losing something of any worth.  Damage priorities (cargo and Barracks are hit on "hull"), means that 20 of these internals are effectively "center hull", after the 8 (4x2) Forward and 14 (7x2) aft hull internals...  Along with it's 30 point front shield, it can take a full scatterpack or most alpha strikes without feeling a thing...

So, the typical Commando pilot is willing to eat one alpha for minor damage (usually at most a stunned or destroyed Phaser is the major effects felt by the commando boat), while it can knock down a shield and start going to town.

I will concede that marines will die initially, yet the point still remains.  Can you destroy a Commando ship that's probably sitting in your weakest arc while he's busy shipping 8 or 9-packs of marines over?  And once you hit that first transporter, a carefully timed repair will make transporters effectively immortal while the repairs are completed, at least a turn or 2, enough to get a good set of marines onboard...

It's still a race the typical commando pilot's primed to win.  While I'm using the D6G as an example for now (as it was the first one mentioned), what would you think about a F-COV with 26 "Hull" (52 free internals), 26 nose shield, and 4 Ph-1s, sending 7 marines per shot, max of 64?  Or a G-COM with 24 shield, 24 "hull", 2-4 F-torps, 4 Ph-1s and a beam-over rate of 5 marines per turn?  At least we don't have to worry about GAS / marine assault shuttles "beaming" lots of troops over during the overrun...

On paper, commando ships with doubled internals are quite powerful.  Previous experience has caused enough whining to have gotten them banned in the first place.  I agree, it might be worth it to let them come back on a server someday, as tactics have evolved and whinyness has faded out a bit, but we should keep the lessons of the past in mind while doing so...

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline Hexx

  • Sexy Shoeless Lyran God Of War
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 6058
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2004, 06:49:04 pm »
Actually speaking of restricted ships

-Any chance we can get those HDW's restricted out for GW3?
Courageously Protesting "Lyran Pelt Day"

Offline Green

  • I'm not a
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3004
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #34 on: August 08, 2004, 07:30:48 pm »
Actually speaking of restricted ships

-Any chance we can get those HDW's restricted out for GW3?


No way ... your a$$ is mine ...  If Likker is done w/ you of course. ;)

Offline Rod ONeal

  • D.Net Beta Tester
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3592
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2004, 09:13:38 pm »
After reading the anti-commando ship sentiments, I'm concerned about the Seltorians that I have planned. It's part of their racial tendencies to capture opponents. Now, there achilles heal is they aren't very maneuverable, can't HET (safely), and there offensive firepower is concentrated in the FA arc. No seeking weapons. Purely a directfire race, which means they need to use power to arm and hold all of their weapons. So, they shouldn't be especially fast.

:example:
FF/DD= 4-trans, 10-bp, turn-C
CL/CA= 6-trans, 20-bp, turn-D
BCH/DN= 6-trans, 30-bp, turn-E

Comments from the experienced MP people? There transporter/BP capability could be reduced, but at the expense of removing their uniqueness.
If Romulans aren't cowards, then why do they taste like chicken?

Offline Laflin

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #36 on: August 08, 2004, 10:49:02 pm »
Hexx:

Between actual Hull hits, Cargo, and Barracks, all of which are, in SFC, basically "Hull Hits", the D6G can absorb 42 internals without breaking a sweat or losing something of any worth.  Damage priorities (cargo and Barracks are hit on "hull"), means that 20 of these internals are effectively "center hull", after the 8 (4x2) Forward and 14 (7x2) aft hull internals...  Along with it's 30 point front shield, it can take a full scatterpack or most alpha strikes without feeling a thing...

So, the typical Commando pilot is willing to eat one alpha for minor damage (usually at most a stunned or destroyed Phaser is the major effects felt by the commando boat), while it can knock down a shield and start going to town.

I will concede that marines will die initially, yet the point still remains.  Can you destroy a Commando ship that's probably sitting in your weakest arc while he's busy shipping 8 or 9-packs of marines over?  And once you hit that first transporter, a carefully timed repair will make transporters effectively immortal while the repairs are completed, at least a turn or 2, enough to get a good set of marines onboard...

It's still a race the typical commando pilot's primed to win.  While I'm using the D6G as an example for now (as it was the first one mentioned), what would you think about a F-COV with 26 "Hull" (52 free internals), 26 nose shield, and 4 Ph-1s, sending 7 marines per shot, max of 64?  Or a G-COM with 24 shield, 24 "hull", 2-4 F-torps, 4 Ph-1s and a beam-over rate of 5 marines per turn?  At least we don't have to worry about GAS / marine assault shuttles "beaming" lots of troops over during the overrun...

On paper, commando ships with doubled internals are quite powerful.  Previous experience has caused enough whining to have gotten them banned in the first place.  I agree, it might be worth it to let them come back on a server someday, as tactics have evolved and whinyness has faded out a bit, but we should keep the lessons of the past in mind while doing so...

I would collapse in my chair in an apoplectic fit of joy if I saw a D6G pull in front of my Lyran BC in order to use those phasers.  Oh, the options!

Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2004, 11:28:23 pm »
I would collapse in my chair in an apoplectic fit of joy if I saw a D6G pull in front of my Lyran BC in order to use those phasers.  Oh, the options!

Who said they were going to stay in front of you longer than it took them to overrun you and crack your tail open...  They can keep your shields down quite nicely with only 3 Ph-2s...

That's my whole point.  One overrun (if that), then the commando-boat's sitting on your tail (and away from most of your guns) for the rest of the mission...

Seltorians, on the other hand, might be a bit of a pain in the neck.  I'd probably call for a 1/3 reduction in 'porters to reflect the extra staying power they gain from double internals, but keep the capture mechanic and large marine contingents in place.

Looking at post, BC / DN with 30 BPs and 6 porters?  My ISC DNs have more than that, (like 48 BPs and 5-6 porters) and we're not a marine-happy race like the Klingons or Lyrans... :(

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline madelf

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 181
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #38 on: August 09, 2004, 01:12:00 am »
Yep Dogmatix...

Those silly commando ships picked on too many players... 8)

Take a D6G:

88 marines, 9 transporters with which to put them on with...

7 Ph-2s, rear-firing, that can probably knock out a shield at range 0 with an aft-fire after an overrun.

From that point, 35 power allows the Klink to phaserboat at speed 31, using Klingon maneuverability to stay on that downed shield.

Within 4 turns, there's going to probably be 36 Klingon marines on the enemy ship.  Many CAs top off at 32 marines, so it's 4 turns (2 photon charge cycles or just a little over a Plasma charge cycle...) to kill the enemy before inevitable capture sets in...

With doubled internals, show me a CA that can severely cripple, if not outright destroy, that D6G in 2 minutes once the line ship loses a shield.  Often times, that's all ilt takes for a line CA to effectively lose their ship.  Of course, there may be a couple more turns while the marines fight it out, but at that point the commando pilot floors it out of dodge and let's the marines do the work...


Erm...phaserboat....with Ph2s?  With those arcs?  I'm not even sure Madelf could do that...heheh.






What?  Of course!  Never!!  <quickly deletes half dozen game films>

Offline Rod ONeal

  • D.Net Beta Tester
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3592
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #39 on: August 09, 2004, 01:44:49 am »

Looking at post, BC / DN with 30 BPs and 6 porters?  My ISC DNs have more than that, (like 48 BPs and 5-6 porters) and we're not a marine-happy race like the Klingons or Lyrans... :(

The Selt DN doesn't have too many transporters. Across the board though, they have a lot. That 30-bp is base, not max. 60-bp if you load up on them. I personally don't have a problem. I think that they're fine. Their lack of maneuverability and mostly FA firepower seems to me to balance out the extra transporter combat capability. I was just wondering if anyone else would look at it and cry cheese. I don't have a whole lot of P vs. P experience and was wondering what others with more experience thought. Keep in mind too that they will be allied with those Lyrans and Klinks.
If Romulans aren't cowards, then why do they taste like chicken?

Offline Laflin

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #40 on: August 09, 2004, 08:54:58 am »
I would collapse in my chair in an apoplectic fit of joy if I saw a D6G pull in front of my Lyran BC in order to use those phasers.  Oh, the options!

Who said they were going to stay in front of you longer than it took them to overrun you and crack your tail open...  They can keep your shields down quite nicely with only 3 Ph-2s...

That's my whole point.  One overrun (if that), then the commando-boat's sitting on your tail (and away from most of your guns) for the rest of the mission...

Seltorians, on the other hand, might be a bit of a pain in the neck.  I'd probably call for a 1/3 reduction in 'porters to reflect the extra staying power they gain from double internals, but keep the capture mechanic and large marine contingents in place.

Looking at post, BC / DN with 30 BPs and 6 porters?  My ISC DNs have more than that, (like 48 BPs and 5-6 porters) and we're not a marine-happy race like the Klingons or Lyrans... :(

Again, I would fervently pray for someone to do this against even a L-CWLP - it would be glorious :)

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #41 on: August 09, 2004, 09:23:05 am »
Commando ships are good in teams if played well and rarely viable in a 1v1 (except the SPG). That is not to say it can't be done 1v1, but a simple Starcastling tactic against most Commando ships will suffice most often.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2004, 03:56:08 pm by Corbomite »

el-Karnak

  • Guest
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #42 on: August 09, 2004, 12:14:52 pm »
I always liked escorts in secondary fleet role. Never flown solo.  It makes more sense that way.

Besides, I-CCZ + I-CE fleet is yummy.  I-BCV(44 pwr) + I-CE is yummy too.

As for commando ships in EEK Shipyard missions.  Just try to get within trans. range of the 4xFRDs.  I saw 4x H-FRDs use their combined gatlings to rip down a K-D6G in 10 seconds at range 2 to 5. :rofl:

Offline Kroma BaSyl

  • Romulan Tart
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2276
  • Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #43 on: August 09, 2004, 12:17:02 pm »
When it comes down to PvP if you are in a CCZ, G-BCH, KRC( I never get this one right but the bugger with 10,000 p1s is the one I mean :) ), BCF, BCHPP+, Z-BCH, or OV, would you rather face a C7 or a D6G? (insert other variants for each race as applicable)?

Neither Commandos or Escorts should hold any terrors for a BCH pilot, Tugs maybe, but probably not. So far as Tugs in lists are concerned just restrict them to 3 types (not too concerned about Tugs), but I really can't see any reason for restricting escorts or Commandos. The only ones which might give slight concern are the FED DE line, but even then PGs are not much use above range 3ish, so don't close. Drone boats hate them with a vengence, plasma may too but not as much, but apart from that, no fermented milk products in sight.

Not necessarily against the inclusion of escorts, commando or tugs, but they should be compared to unrestricted ships not OOB ships if the idea is to make them generally available.

Commando ships would be totally cool IMO.

Tugs would be cool too, but maybe just put in 1 or 2 for each race so that they don't clutter up the shipyard and screw with AI draws to much.

Escorts seem cool to me also, not really affraid of them, but maybe limit to a couple of varients that were historically accurate to this front.
♥ ♥ ♥  GDA Kroma BaSyl  ♥ ♥ ♥
GCS Prima Ballerina
GCS PHAT Gorn
GCS Queen Kroma


Because this game makes me feel like  a thirteen year old girl trapped in a lizards body.

Offline TotensBurntCorpse

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #44 on: August 09, 2004, 01:31:26 pm »
Solo escorts are cheese.   This game does not need more cheese, it needs less.
A fair and balanced shiplist for D2 needs MORE ships removed, not more OTT crap added.
Not entirely sure I understand why this is.
BCHs for example would be more complex to build, more costly and a lot rarer than cheap hulled FF/DD/CL E's regardless of the "systems" in them.
The usual wet navy comparisons show very few BCs (real ones what we call BCHs) and lots of "Escorts" whether they be AA, AS, or GP.
Anyhow in the average single player game, mano a mano, the BCH or even CC shouldn't have a problem, its only us dumb cheesy droners who really need fear all those ADDs and PGs.
Variety is the spice and all that.
What about Commando ships?
Tugs well there are rather a lot, say they were pared down to TUG-A, BT and CVT?

I would propose that only BC n higher be restricted.  Given eveyone uses Drones in #3 make em expensive.   As to escorts being cheaper than BCHs I would suggest that they are similar in Economic price to build but not in combat effectiveness.

IIRC the fed SWAC shuttle cost as much as a frigate to make.  Aegis systems on escorts was VERY pricy.  Phaser G's on fed escorts were copies from the hydrans and thus should be "limited" production of that item.

Offline TotensBurntCorpse

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #45 on: August 09, 2004, 01:35:05 pm »
Commando ships WERE cheesy when people could use them to get 25,000 PP in and hour running shiyard defense missions.  

This is not the case anymore as the stock Taldren mission have gone bye-bye, maybe they could make a comeback?

Beg to differ....

Found that some klingon ships have ONE MARINE on them.  ONE MAX!!!!!  Talk about captures !!!!!!

Offline TotensBurntCorpse

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #46 on: August 09, 2004, 01:42:34 pm »
Hmmmmm even in SFB Gatling's are common as muck, F-14s, F-15s, and the most common fighter of all F-16s not to mention others. No good saying it's a fighter variant it still does the same damage put those on ships. FF/DD/CL hulls are mass produced, CC and BCH hulls are not they are much More costly, have way bigger crews, and more specialisms on one ship.

Escorts are used not just for CVAs although the NAC style ones will be reserved for that, but convoy, fleet and patrols duties especially the smaller FF/DD hulls.

Now with the current players are there many who think the Escort is going to take out the CC/BCH! If Squiggy were here you may have an argument, but he is not.

Commando ships, well I disagree with Dog the D6G is not good, its bloody marvelous!( 9 trannies is usually one more than the defendingship has Marines) but seriously if anyone in PvP, in the ships many fly allow themselves to be "captured" by a D6G, don't you think the quodos should go to the D6 pilot or whatever Commando ship! capturing a CC or BCH piloted by a player in an old ship by boarding would be so cool. As for PP farming, what the hell difference does it make if you have a Gazillion PP, there are only so many ships, bases etc you can lay down, and while farming the player is usually out of the action. Lets face it we all farm to get the ships we want just to a lesser extent.

No one has mentioned Tugs. Have they ever been used in a campaign? What are the views

Capturing to get PP is not a big deal....
Feds - GSC 7 trannies CA
Lyran - JPGM 7 trannies CL
Hydran - 4 max on a CA hull - noo good here
Mirak - War destroyers with 6 trannies
Klingon - War destroyers with 6 trannies
etc

G boats are still in the list gentlemen, we have just "eliminated" the ones that are PRIMARILY G boats.  Some of the War Destroyer ships would kick a D6Gs hiney in no time.

As to PP farming, why do u think Missle boats are so popular.

I agree with above comment, who gives a damn if you have a bizillion PP banked, the only thing it would be good for is buying bases. BUT given bases may be destroyable, the missions may morf it into a crappy BS rather than the SB you bought then ?????

I have tried to fly tugs.  There are some interesting variants out there that may be worth flying.  In PvP they tend to be at a major disadvantage in a speed fight.  They attack bases and planets rather well.  Vs Plazma ships they are basically target pratice.

Offline Hexx

  • Sexy Shoeless Lyran God Of War
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 6058
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #47 on: August 09, 2004, 01:43:33 pm »
Solo escorts are cheese.   This game does not need more cheese, it needs less.
A fair and balanced shiplist for D2 needs MORE ships removed, not more OTT crap added.
Not entirely sure I understand why this is.
BCHs for example would be more complex to build, more costly and a lot rarer than cheap hulled FF/DD/CL E's regardless of the "systems" in them.
The usual wet navy comparisons show very few BCs (real ones what we call BCHs) and lots of "Escorts" whether they be AA, AS, or GP.
Anyhow in the average single player game, mano a mano, the BCH or even CC shouldn't have a problem, its only us dumb cheesy droners who really need fear all those ADDs and PGs.
Variety is the spice and all that.
What about Commando ships?
Tugs well there are rather a lot, say they were pared down to TUG-A, BT and CVT?

I would propose that only BC n higher be restricted.  Given eveyone uses Drones in #3 make em expensive.   As to escorts being cheaper than BCHs I would suggest that they are similar in Economic price to build but not in combat effectiveness.

IIRC the fed SWAC shuttle cost as much as a frigate to make.  Aegis systems on escorts was VERY pricy.  Phaser G's on fed escorts were copies from the hydrans and thus should be "limited" production of that item.

This brings up one of those long time SFB questions I've had.
Everything I've read (which I admit isn't much) from SFB says that the PhG's were in "limited production" and only available for a few escorts etc.
Did they ever explain how they managed to stick them on their front line fighters?
I mean unless the idea was that the Fed fighters were so good they never died it would seem to me that you'd need more than a "limited production" weapon to put on them.
Courageously Protesting "Lyran Pelt Day"

Offline TotensBurntCorpse

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #48 on: August 09, 2004, 01:48:55 pm »
After reading the anti-commando ship sentiments, I'm concerned about the Seltorians that I have planned. It's part of their racial tendencies to capture opponents. Now, there achilles heal is they aren't very maneuverable, can't HET (safely), and there offensive firepower is concentrated in the FA arc. No seeking weapons. Purely a directfire race, which means they need to use power to arm and hold all of their weapons. So, they shouldn't be especially fast.

:example:
FF/DD= 4-trans, 10-bp, turn-C
CL/CA= 6-trans, 20-bp, turn-D
BCH/DN= 6-trans, 30-bp, turn-E

Comments from the experienced MP people? There transporter/BP capability could be reduced, but at the expense of removing their uniqueness.


Keep them in.  ppl who are now complaining about commando boats dont realize that they still exist on the ship lists on pretty much all servers (GSC is an excellent example) and if they dont get used much then whose to complain.  The "official" commando boats is what were restricted.  Bad move IMHO but sigh what ever.  Typically tho very few PvP combats end in capture.  In the last year I think I have personally only captured 5 or 6 people (barring them not self distructing),  that is to say with their ships being still operational.  A crippled ship with passive phaser shots any idiot can capture.

So IMHO put in as many marine boats as you want.  Its up to the players to pick the ship that suits their flying style.

Offline TotensBurntCorpse

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #49 on: August 09, 2004, 01:51:39 pm »
Commando ships, well I disagree with Dog the D6G is not good, its bloody marvelous!( 9 trannies is usually one more than the defendingship has Marines) but seriously if anyone in PvP, in the ships many fly allow themselves to be "captured" by a D6G, don't you think the quodos should go to the D6 pilot or whatever Commando ship! capturing a CC or BCH piloted by a player in an old ship by boarding would be so cool. As for PP farming, what the hell difference does it make if you have a Gazillion PP, there are only so many ships, bases etc you can lay down, and while farming the player is usually out of the action. Lets face it we all farm to get the ships we want just to a lesser extent.

No one has mentioned Tugs. Have they ever been used in a campaign? What are the views

I don't think kudos are really deserving to the commando pilot.

Consider this:

1.  7 Ph-2s, all 7 fire directly out the rear centerline.  At range 0, those 7 Ph-2s are enough to knock down any CL or smaller's shield, and on a decent roll enough to scrap most CAs rear shields.  If not, the 3 forward Ph-2s in a shot or 2 can finish the job.
2.  Maneuverability class B, along with 35 power, means the D6Gs probably going to fly 31, trickle charging phasers.  If the enemy's not doing 31, they can slow down and put up some ECM / reinforcement.  Once they're in range, the speed / maneuverability advantages of this ship are going to let him dictate what shield and range he's going to stay at (which is probably 5-5.99 on the hurt / down shield.  Counter strategy is to phaserboat yourself, doing speed 31 to keep the enemy outside of the magic range.  It takes a while of phaserboating to weaken the commando ship enough to be able to kill him in the 2-minute window at close range...
3.  In SFCs double internal environment, the D6Gs barely going to feel the first alpha strike, and, if he does take a second one, is going to be mildly hurt, not severely crippled and basically ineffective like it would be in SFB.
4.  Once the shield is down, the D6G's putting 36 marines (more than just about anyone's CA carries) in 2 minutes, and can dump enough marines to cap just about any ship in the game within 3 minutes (6 turns).  At that point, the D6G's taking off out of effective range of all weapons and letting the clock run on the enemy ship.

Therefore, in the hands of even a mildly experienced pilot, the commando boat is quite a lethal weapon, as it can take damage (don't forget the barracks are hit on hull, doubled internals, and do not automatically kill off 10 marines with each blown up box...), can effectively kill most any ship in 2-3 minutes of engagement without relying on actual weapons, and, outside of Klink / Hydran / Lyran, all commando boats are armed with Ph-1s, not Ph-2s...

From what I remember (as I was thankfully not the victim of a commando boat myself), this was par for the course / SOP from just about any race's commando boat.

Tugs, on the other hand, have only been flown for "novelty" so far.  They are quite powerful ships, but oftentimes much slower / less maneuverable than an equivalent counterpart.  I don't know if they would be flown as cheese if left unrestricted, as most admins have been keeping them off the lists for now...


HOLD ON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And with the 7 phaser 2's that only fire backwards, assuming they are all used to attack with.... what does the commander do vs the plazma and drones and fighters and and and comming at him???????????????

I have flown the D6G many times, with out a wing man you usually get your a$$ handed to you by just about anything.

Offline Rod ONeal

  • D.Net Beta Tester
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3592
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #50 on: August 09, 2004, 01:53:50 pm »
Ftr gatlings and ship gatlings were explained as different systems. I know they do the same damage etc..., but they are classified as being different and not interchangable. I'm sure that it's just a game balance rule/explaination to stop the Feds from having them on every ship and becoming the equivalent of the LDR with a huge budget and resources and unbalancing the game.
If Romulans aren't cowards, then why do they taste like chicken?

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #51 on: August 09, 2004, 02:52:40 pm »
Ftr gatlings and ship gatlings were explained as different systems. I know they do the same damage etc..., but they are classified as being different and not interchangable. I'm sure that it's just a game balance rule/explaination to stop the Feds from having them on every ship and becoming the equivalent of the LDR with a huge budget and resources and unbalancing the game.

Yup, the fighter PH-G requires more maintenance and cannot be placed on a ship.
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline Gook

  • Catbert
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 405
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #52 on: August 10, 2004, 07:16:14 am »
Ftr gatlings and ship gatlings were explained as different systems. I know they do the same damage etc..., but they are classified as being different and not interchangable. I'm sure that it's just a game balance rule/explaination to stop the Feds from having them on every ship and becoming the equivalent of the LDR with a huge budget and resources and unbalancing the game.

Yup, the fighter PH-G requires more maintenance and cannot be placed on a ship.

Why?

Unfortunately as has been  commented on in the past in many reviews of SFB it  is "in danger of collapsing under the weight of its own inconsistencies" This is just one example. If nothing else were possible you would mount "fighter" modules in turrets, r even the whole fighter, no I'm afraid its a bit of ADB nonsense, just like wanting to put 16 of these "rare" and expensive PGs into a single CL  hull.

Even if you cannot agree with the above, this is SFC/OP not SFB. There is no reason to restrict on "technological rarity" or "difficulty" grounds in this game.
KAT-Gook, OBS,OoW,MTA,SoK.
KAT-Fleet
Kzinti Hegemony

The God of War hates those who hesitate
.....Eurypides



Offline Kroma BaSyl

  • Romulan Tart
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2276
  • Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #53 on: August 10, 2004, 07:38:37 am »


Why?

Unfortunately as has been  commented on in the past in many reviews of SFB it  is "in danger of collapsing under the weight of its own inconsistencies" This is just one example. If nothing else were possible you would mount "fighter" modules in turrets, r even the whole fighter, no I'm afraid its a bit of ADB nonsense, just like wanting to put 16 of these "rare" and expensive PGs into a single CL  hull.

Even if you cannot agree with the above, this is SFC/OP not SFB. There is no reason to restrict on "technological rarity" or "difficulty" grounds in this game.

Actually, there is still the real SFB reason, which is to maintain balance and differenciation amoung the racial flavors. Any other "reason" given in the SFB descriptive/historical comments is just a rationalization for those that require it in order to suspend disbelief, as SVC has said several times.
♥ ♥ ♥  GDA Kroma BaSyl  ♥ ♥ ♥
GCS Prima Ballerina
GCS PHAT Gorn
GCS Queen Kroma


Because this game makes me feel like  a thirteen year old girl trapped in a lizards body.

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #54 on: August 10, 2004, 07:44:59 am »


Even if you cannot agree with the above, this is SFC/OP not SFB. There is no reason to restrict on "technological rarity" or "difficulty" grounds in this game.

Yes there is, to prevent the cheese situation from getting worse.

Every modification I have seen to this game that was not based on SFB has been total crap.
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline KAT Chuut-Ritt

  • Vice Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 26163
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #55 on: August 10, 2004, 07:47:24 am »
Not every modification, your forgetting the Moggy Z-BCH there I believe.

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #56 on: August 10, 2004, 08:05:05 am »
Not every modification, your forgetting the Moggy Z-BCH there I believe.

For a non-cannan ship, the moggy BCH is VERY "SFB" if you know what i mean.   ;D
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline Gook

  • Catbert
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 405
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #57 on: August 10, 2004, 08:07:30 am »
Quote

Actually, there is still the real SFB reason, which is to maintain balance and differenciation amoung the racial flavors. Any other "reason" given in the SFB descriptive/historical comments is just a rationalization for those that require it in order to suspend disbelief, as SVC has said several times.


Why do feds get PGs then they are Hydran tech, that is not their racial flavour. The reason they got them was to sell more stuff, because the mass of peeps playing were Feds and they wanted cool gizmos, ADB obliged for fiscal reasons then came out with the racial tripe and fighter rubbish.

ADB really do need a continuity guy :)

If a weapon works, in time of war it gets made, regardless of cost, and other less effective stuff gets dumped. The idea the Feds couldn't manufacture more if they wanted to, having actually replicated the foreign tech in the first place is laughable.

Anyhow none of this is an argument for restricting Fed Escorts in this game.

KAT-Gook, OBS,OoW,MTA,SoK.
KAT-Fleet
Kzinti Hegemony

The God of War hates those who hesitate
.....Eurypides



Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #58 on: August 10, 2004, 08:14:14 am »
The idea the Feds couldn't manufacture more if they wanted to, having actually replicated the foreign tech in the first place is laughable.


With all the techno-bullsh*t you promote THIS is now laughable?  :D
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


762_XC

  • Guest
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #59 on: August 10, 2004, 08:15:41 am »
Anyhow none of this is an argument for restricting Fed Escorts in this game.

The argument is an argument against cheese.

Escorts (like HDW's) have a combat power disproportionate to their hull size. People get sick of facing that after a while.

Offline Mog

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 610
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #60 on: August 10, 2004, 08:31:22 am »
Quote

Actually, there is still the real SFB reason, which is to maintain balance and differenciation amoung the racial flavors. Any other "reason" given in the SFB descriptive/historical comments is just a rationalization for those that require it in order to suspend disbelief, as SVC has said several times.


Why do feds get PGs then they are Hydran tech, that is not their racial flavour. The reason they got them was to sell more stuff, because the mass of peeps playing were Feds and they wanted cool gizmos, ADB obliged for fiscal reasons then came out with the racial tripe and fighter rubbish.

ADB really do need a continuity guy :)





Agreed ;)
Merriment is All

Fear the Meow!

Offline Kroma BaSyl

  • Romulan Tart
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2276
  • Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #61 on: August 10, 2004, 09:33:08 am »
Quote

Actually, there is still the real SFB reason, which is to maintain balance and differenciation amoung the racial flavors. Any other "reason" given in the SFB descriptive/historical comments is just a rationalization for those that require it in order to suspend disbelief, as SVC has said several times.


Why do feds get PGs then they are Hydran tech, that is not their racial flavour. The reason they got them was to sell more stuff, because the mass of peeps playing were Feds and they wanted cool gizmos, ADB obliged for fiscal reasons then came out with the racial tripe and fighter rubbish.

ADB really do need a continuity guy :)

If a weapon works, in time of war it gets made, regardless of cost, and other less effective stuff gets dumped. The idea the Feds couldn't manufacture more if they wanted to, having actually replicated the foreign tech in the first place is laughable.

Anyhow none of this is an argument for restricting Fed Escorts in this game.



Nor is any techno-babbel argument reason for unrestricting them or adding  Ph-Gs to more Fed ships.
♥ ♥ ♥  GDA Kroma BaSyl  ♥ ♥ ♥
GCS Prima Ballerina
GCS PHAT Gorn
GCS Queen Kroma


Because this game makes me feel like  a thirteen year old girl trapped in a lizards body.

Offline NuclearWessels

  • Evil Dave
  • Serverkit Development Team
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1249
  • Scripter and general nuisance
    • NukeDocs
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #62 on: August 10, 2004, 09:43:00 am »
...

ADB really do need a continuity guy :)
...

Continuity ... Trek ... continuity ... trek ....

No, I just can't see any connection between the two ;D

dave

Offline Rod ONeal

  • D.Net Beta Tester
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3592
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #63 on: August 10, 2004, 10:39:52 pm »

Why?

Unfortunately as has been  commented on in the past in many reviews of SFB it  is "in danger of collapsing under the weight of its own inconsistencies"

Yeap! They'll probably all be saying that another 20 years from now too.

Kroma has it right on.
Quote from: Kroma
Actually, there is still the real SFB reason, which is to maintain balance and differenciation amoung the racial flavors. Any other "reason" given in the SFB descriptive/historical comments is just a rationalization for those that require it in order to suspend disbelief, as SVC has said several times.



If Romulans aren't cowards, then why do they taste like chicken?