Topic: GZ's Patrol Battle Rules - Updated for Cycle 3!

[KHH Jakle]

Each race now has their own seperate Matrix.  This is what we'll go into cycle 3 with, which will be considered the true playtest of the rules balance.  From there, changes or modifications will be discussed over at the GZ Forum.

http://home.comcast.net/~jakle/Final_PBR_Rules.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~jakle/Fedlist.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~jakle/Gornlist.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~jakle/HydranList.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~jakle/ISCList.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~jakle/Klinklist.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~jakle/Mirak_List.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~jakle/RomList.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~jakle/Lyranlist.htm

[Julin Eurthyr]

Okay.

One question, what's the ISC supposed to fly in a DN & BCH battle, as all our CAs except for a carrier has a PPD, and all our DNs have a PPD?

Though the ISC matrix does look a lot better now...

[KHH Jakle]

The TBPV range is limited.  From the beginning (pre-PBR) we wanted a maximum Total BPV that would more often then not force some variety in ship selection.  Even with the maximum end of TBPV for late, you would not be able to afford 3 DN's...or even 2 DN's without having to pick a police ship for your 3rd (some fleets were inclined to do that though).  The average TBPV tends to fall in the 400-500 range. 

With PBR, look at the relative cost of say a DNZ & 2x CLZ and you are at about the maximum end of the TBPV spectrum for Late Era.

Add to that, that your opponents can't take multple BCH's or command ships - so considering the strength of ISC ships, it's not like they are going to be easily outgunned

We're dealing with theoreticals - since PBR hasn't been playtested - but I feel like we are in a position to provide for some good match ups.

[Corbomite]

Okay.

One question, what's the ISC supposed to fly in a DN & BCH battle, as all our CAs except for a carrier has a PPD, and all our DNs have a PPD?

Though the ISC matrix does look a lot better now...

The ISC have a Plasma Dred in the OP+ list and the CAW is a CA with no PPD, but there is no BCH class w/o PPD. Giving them a total number to distribute was a better plan IMO, we just need to agree on how many. I still vote (of course) for my stepped approach.

I would again also urge that PF Tenders be declared Carriers. If not all of them, i.e any Tender with more than 2 PF's, then at least the CA size class and larger should be. These ships are perfectly capable of being the center of a Carrier Group.


EDIT: I just reread Jakle's reply and he is correct. Also, A DN and BCH can't fly together anyway due to Command Ship restrictions.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Okay.  Here's my concern:

Remembering that OP+ removes "obsolete" ships 2 years after the ship is refitted.  The ISC's refit schedule:

2265, W-refit issued.  Mandatory in 2267
2268, P-refit issued.  Mandatory in 2270
2270, Y-refit issued.  Mandatory in 2272
2279, Z-refit issued.  Mandatory in 2281

There it is.  The ISC's "locked" into picking PPD-equipped CAs as of 2270.  The I-DNP doesn't come out till 2288 (shiplist year 25!)  So, for the 18 year period 2270-2288, every ISC CA, BCH and DN carries a PPD.  So, the ISC "line ship" deployment pattern for 18 years, in the upper TBPV ranges, is mandated by the 1 PPD rule to being DN / BCH / CA & 2xCLY/Z.  Carrier groups are the only other option.

The "typical ISC outgunning" situation is a myth, based on perception alone.  Consider these ships:
I-CAY, 165 BPV vs I-CAZ, 194.
I-CLY, 132 BPV vs I-CLZ, 151.

Now, consider the matchups.  Tell me that the I-CAY outguns all the CAs of their era, when it can't even stand up to a BCH by BPV.  Or the I-CLY is going to wax all the CAs it sees, when it's only as strong as say a D5 or NCL with medium drones.

Are the ISC still such "overbearing" opponents at these levels in these eras?  What makes the PPD so fearsome that people are only willing to face ISC ships that resemble Gorn with a phaser-blind spot on the tail instead of the actual PPD-using ships of the ISC?

[KHH Jakle]

Okay.  Here's my concern:

Remembering that OP+ removes "obsolete" ships 2 years after the ship is refitted.  The ISC's refit schedule:

2265, W-refit issued.  Mandatory in 2267
2268, P-refit issued.  Mandatory in 2270
2270, Y-refit issued.  Mandatory in 2272
2279, Z-refit issued.  Mandatory in 2281

Remember though that when playing multiplayer on GSA, ship selection is by Era and not by years.  I suspect that refits P thru Z are all available in Late Era.  The W might be as well.  I'd have to load up the game in single player to check that.

Are the ISC still such "overbearing" opponents at these levels in these eras?  What makes the PPD so fearsome that people are only willing to face ISC ships that resemble Gorn with a phaser-blind spot on the tail instead of the actual PPD-using ships of the ISC?

It's not a matter of the PPD being so fearsome.  PBR is simply an interpretation of Ship Deployment Restrictions ala SFB. 

[KHH Jakle]

I would again also urge that PF Tenders be declared Carriers. If not all of them, i.e any Tender with more than 2 PF's, then at least the CA size class and larger should be. These ships are perfectly capable of being the center of a Carrier Group.

We'll have to see how it pans out.  Historically, few League players take Carriers and far fewer take PF Tenders.  There just doesn't seem to be enough clear cut need to modify the PBR.  I am open to revisions - I just want some live battle reports in our environment to be the driver.

GDA - have you guys taken a PF Tender in any Match since Cycle 1?

[Corbomite]

Julin, you can buy any ship you want on GSA as long as it was built before or in the era you are playing. If you want to take a ship built in 2230 when playing in 2280 you can with no problem. Refit schedules are for the shipyards in D2 only.

No offense Julin, but I was on just about everyone's list as a really good ISC pilot. If I say the PPD needs to be on a leash you can believe its for a good reason. It is a devastating weapon when there are three or more of them and used correctly.

[Corbomite]

I would again also urge that PF Tenders be declared Carriers. If not all of them, i.e any Tender with more than 2 PF's, then at least the CA size class and larger should be. These ships are perfectly capable of being the center of a Carrier Group.

We'll have to see how it pans out.  Historically, few League players take Carriers and far fewer take PF Tenders.  There just doesn't seem to be enough clear cut need to modify the PBR.  I am open to revisions - I just want some live battle reports in our environment to be the driver.

GDA - have you guys taken a PF Tender in any Match since Cycle 1?

Most of the time Carriers and Tenders on GSA are not the best option, however, in a good pilot's hands they can be a nightmare. Also this was before the PBR. Carriers and Tenders will become more attractive when everyone can't take the best ship they can afford. We'll just have to see.

[GDA-Kel]

GDA - have you guys taken a PF Tender in any Match since Cycle 1?

No.  The problem is our tenders (other than the carrier) are fairly weak ships.  We've always assumed that our opponents will simply target the tender and eliminate it first.  For example, the HDP weighs in at 158 bpv with 2xPlaF 5XPh1 and 4 INT's.  Not likely to scare anyone until you upgrade to PFL or PF+, which then add another 25 BPV (approx) per PF for a total BPV of around 250 or so.  Not worth the cost in our opinion.  We always seem to consider PF's for each match, but then decide against them.  Maybe one of these days we'll suprise someone with them.....
    

[Kroma BaSyl]

GDA - have you guys taken a PF Tender in any Match since Cycle 1?

No.

[KHH Jakle]

Most of the time Carriers and Tenders on GSA are not the best option, however, in a good pilot's hands they can be a nightmare. Also this was before the PBR. Carriers and Tenders will become more attractive when everyone can't take the best ship they can afford. We'll just have to see.

Yep...

[KHH Jakle]

No.  The problem is our tenders (other than the carrier) are fairly weak ships.  We've always assumed that our opponents will simply target the tender and eliminate it first.  For example, the HDP weighs in at 158 bpv with 2xPlaF 5XPh1 and 4 INT's.  Not likely to scare anyone until you upgrade to PFL or PF+, which then add another 25 BPV (approx) per PF for a total BPV of around 250 or so.  Not worth the cost in our opinion.  We always seem to consider PF's for each match, but then decide against them.  Maybe one of these days we'll suprise someone with them.....
    

Yeah - the 'pop the Tender and the PF's are gone' aspect of the game sucks.

It does add a certain element to the match though - the need to safeguard a valuable unit.

[Corbomite]

Yeah - the 'pop the Tender and the PF's are gone' aspect of the game sucks.

It does add a certain element to the match though - the need to safeguard a valuable unit.

No one is going to "pop" a G-BCS, G-DNP, R-FHE, R-RGE, R-ROCF, L-BCHT or L-DNHT unless the pilot is an idiot. Plese reconsider the upper classes.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Yeah - the 'pop the Tender and the PF's are gone' aspect of the game sucks.

It does add a certain element to the match though - the need to safeguard a valuable unit.

No one is going to "pop" a G-BCS, G-DNP, R-FHE, R-RGE, R-ROCF, L-BCHT or L-DNHT unless the pilot is an idiot. Plese reconsider the upper classes.

Aren't these already restricted as Command ships?  Or are you suggesting they be considered as carriers? In anycase, I don't think it matters much anyway as the BCS and DNP are over priced for the relative increase in combat effectiveness over the none PF versions of their hulls.

[Corbomite]

Sez you! 

Besides, that puts things like BCS/HDP combo's possible (however improbable) and that's what I'm getting at.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Sez you! 

Just going by the fact that I have yet to see a single carrier fleet in the first 2 cycles, or even a heavy hulled PF tender. At 256 for instance for the BCS with only INTs the money would usually be better spent on a DNH or BB once the BPV for the upgraded PFs is factored in. Another issue to keep in mind is that escorts are not created equal, and the plasma races in a carrier/escort fleet would not fair as well as those in direct fire races.

Jakle, has anyone to your knowledge even used a carrier fleet in either of the first 2 cycles? I would not be against making the heavy tenders carriers, but unless the PBR for carrier fleets is somehow adjusted I doubt we will see them anyway. I wonder how they might be made more useful for the relative BPVs?

[Kroma BaSyl]

Besides, that puts things like BCS/HDP combo's possible (however improbable) and that's what I'm getting at.

No because they are both tenders and therefore restricted under the PBR as only 1 specialty ship is allowed. Or did they not get classified as tenders either? If that is the case then they should be. I would even go as far to say they count as both the specialty ship and the command ship under the PBR. Thus if you took one the other 2 ships would have to be vanilla.

[Corbomite]

You are allowed one Commad ship and one Combat Support ship, which the smaller Tenders are under now.

[KHH Jakle]

Sez you! 

Just going by the fact that I have yet to see a single carrier fleet in the first 2 cycles, or even a heavy hulled PF tender. At 256 for instance for the BCS with only INTs the money would usually be better spent on a DNH or BB once the BPV for the upgraded PFs is factored in. Another issue to keep in mind is that escorts are not created equal, and the plasma races in a carrier/escort fleet would not fair as well as those in direct fire races.

Jakle, has anyone to your knowledge even used a carrier fleet in either of the first 2 cycles? I would not be against making the heavy tenders carriers, but unless the PBR for carrier fleets is somehow adjusted I doubt we will see them anyway. I wonder how they might be made more useful for the relative BPVs?

ISC has used them repeatedly in their CLX, 2xCVLS combos - but other than them, that's it.  

It would be interesting to determine the Total BPV value of some legal (PBR) Carrier Groups.  I might mess with that this week if I have some free time.  Considering Carriers are more complex to determine their value, since most people have to actually go in and buy them and their fighters to determine how much it will cost.  Then factor in the cost of the escorts...

Yeah...Carrier Battle Forces.  I'll Slap a couple together.  I'll also explore the worse case PF Scenario (lets say a DNP w/ HDP and a 3rd ship).