Topic: GW4 Mod Explanation

[FPF-DieHard]

Mod Explanation:

OOB:

All Specialty ships are controlled via OOB.  Kroma came up with the idea of 2 types of points for controlling the OOB.   BPs, Build Points, are used for the purchasing of DN and BCH hulls.   CP, Conversion Points, are used for converting ships into specialty ships.   This is sort of to emulate how in SFB ans F&E, Shipyards were used to construct ships but Start bases had the ability to convert and refit ships.

CPs are also used to upgrade DN and BCH ships. 
Now you may ask, what is a specialty ship? Carriers, Tenders, Droners, Escorts, Scouts, Maulers, Fast Cruisers, etc are specialty ships.   Each specialty ship costs one CP to convert.

Command cruisers and Line Cruisers as generally available for all to fly.

Flags:

To avoid confusion, all capital and specialty ships have been ?flagged? in the ships list.   Capital ships have a ?c? in the beginning of the name (EXAMPLE: F-cDNH, K-cC7) and specialty ships are flagged with an ?s? (EXAMPLE: F-sCVD, K-sFDW).   Ships that are generally available (K-D7W, R-NHK, F-CLC) have no flags so feel free to buy as many as you like.

Klink Tweaks:
-   2 B-Racks added to Klingon Strike Carriers
-   4 B-Racks added to K-C8V/C8VK.  2 Disrupters removed
-   K-C10K:  +1 AMD12
-   K-D7L: FYA moved to 2273 based on SFB precedent
-   K-C5K: FYA moved to 2273 based on SFB precedent

Tholians:

Tholians are converted by Brezgone.  I cut an pasted.  Maybe we can nag him to give a write up because I honestly don?t know too much about them.

Fighters and PFs:    All races have fighters and PFs.  The new PFs for the Federation and Klingons are based on SFB material.   Yes the Federation PFs are conjectural, but they are still legal.

For developing fighters for the Romulans and Tholians, we used the stats from SFB 100%.  The Speeds were doubled and internals left as is to represent WBPs (Warp Booster Packs) and double-internals.  The GW dev team was now faced with an option, do we use SFB fighters for the Romulans/Tholians and use the Taldren fighters for the Klingon/Federation or do we use SFB fighters for all?

We chose to use SFB fighters for all. 

The fighters are as close to SFB stats as the game engine allows.  When ?creative license? was needed, we went for the ?spirit? of SFB.  In SFB, fighters were deadly as hell up-close, fast, and could not take as much damage as most of the Taldren fighters.  I think the translations worked out well and I don?t believe anything is OTT with the CnC we?ve set up.

The Romulan Carriers are straight out of SFB converted to the 2/3 fighter rule. 

The Klingon PF tenders are straight conversions from SFB.   The Federation PF tenders are SFB legal conversions of the F111 carriers from the Federation 3rd way.  By ?SFB legal? we used the conversion of the BCS and SCS for conjectural PFs.  Cargo is converted to repair, F111s swapped for PFs.

Casual PF Tenders.  

In SFB, ANY ship could be refitted to carry 2 PFs into battle.   These PFs were literally strapped-on hitching a ride into battle.   The casual PF Tenders could NOT repair the PFs as they had no real hanger/repair facilities.  This is represented by the rule that ships with 2 PFs cannot recall them after they have been launched in battle (Thanks Scipio for the inspiration  ).

Any ship could have 2 PFs in SFB, but we had no intention on including casual tender variant of every single ship.   That?s simply nuts and too much work.  Instead we made variants of the following ships:

-   BCH
-   CCH
-   NCC
-   CF
-   NCF
-   CWL 

The Casual PF tenders are considered specialty ships and cost 1 CP to convert.

Fighter/ PF CnC

Straight SFB.  See the website for details http://mkroll.asta.chicago.il.us/

I?ll post more later, going to get the test server running now . . .

[Dizzy]

Tholians:

Tholians are converted by Brezgone.  I cut an pasted.  Maybe we can nag him to give a write up because I honestly don?t know too much about them.

Brez, your copy of OP is sitting right here on my desk. I have to go to the post office tomorrow and I'll ship it to you then 2nd day so you get it in time for the server start. Sorry I sat on it so long... been... busy.

[KBF-Frankk]

Mod Explanation:

OOB:

All Specialty ships are controlled via OOB.  Kroma came up with the idea of 2 types of points for controlling the OOB.   BPs, Build Points, are used for the purchasing of DN and BCH hulls.   CP, Conversion Points, are used for converting ships into specialty ships.   This is sort of to emulate how in SFB ans F&E, Shipyards were used to construct ships but Start bases had the ability to convert and refit ships.

K-D5d is line ship 

[Kroma BaSyl]

K-D5d is line ship 

NOT!

Kroma

PS, You owe me $20 Jinn, I told you Sears wouldn't be the first.

[RazalYllib]

Unfortunately I must concur w/ Kroma.  All SFB "D" type varients (D= Drone Bombardment) were the result of a conversion applied during or post construction.  It is a non-standard design.

[Dizzy]

Unfortunately I must concur w/ Kroma.  All SFB "D" type varients (D= Drone Bombardment) were the result of a conversion applied during or post construction.  It is a non-standard design.

+karma to ya 4 havin the ballz to say that to a drone luvin klink chuckin club...

[FPF-DrAzteca]

K-D5d is line ship 

NOT!

Kroma

PS, You owe me $20 Jinn, I told you Sears wouldn't be the first.

 

[Doomstone]

Unfortunately I must concur w/ Kroma.  All SFB "D" type varients (D= Drone Bombardment) were the result of a conversion applied during or post construction.  It is a non-standard design.

My understanding is that's true, with the exception of the K-D5D which is a line ship. Maybe Krueg or one of the other Klinks with archived SFB materials can dig up the appropriate section for you.

[IAF Lyrkiller]

i would hate to say this but the D5D IS a CL, not a line cruiser. It is on a CL class hull. I will look this up but i do think that Kroma is correct.

[Corbomite]

Note that my source for this is old, but:


(R3.50) D5D DRONE CRUISER: Designed for direct combat with drones, not for independent long-range bombardment. Changes: replace disruptors with type-A drone racks; can control drones equal to double the sensor rating; can launch one drone per rack each turn.


Of course our D5D has B racks where the dizzys were so this may not still be the case if SFB has changed it too.

[KBFLordKrueg]

Unfortunately I must concur w/ Kroma.  All SFB "D" type variants (D= Drone Bombardment) were the result of a conversion applied during or post construction.  It is a non-standard design.

My understanding is that's true, with the exception of the K-D5D which is a line ship. Maybe Krueg or one of the other Klinks with archived SFB materials can dig up the appropriate section for you.

From the Book:
"The following ships are variants of the D5 wartime construction cruiser, Unless, none are added to the (U3.2) Order of Battle. All are available for conversions or new construction. The 18 D5s in the initial OB include 3xD5C, 3xD5D, 1xD5F, 1xD5G, 1xD5H and 9 D5s. The construction rate of 6 per 6 month turn includes 1xD5C, 3 D5, 1 D5H and one of any type (except C which is list or B-J K refits, which are under separate limits.)

(R3.50) D5D Drone Cruiser: Designed for direct combat with drones, not for independent longe-range bombardment.

(R3.56) D5K Improved cruiser: The standard K refit (R3.72) was applied to the standard D5.
The following variants rarely received the K refit: AD5, D6A, D5D, D5E, D5F, D5N.

In the long run it's going to be considered a "specialty ship" for Conversion Point purposes for GW4.
And it's really not worth arguing about over 1 lousy ship.

[RazalYllib]

Which book is that from...the newer F&E manuel Krueg.  I have the earlier edition and none of the additional content and am beginning to think it might be worth the $$$ to get back up to date.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I would further add that in GW4 with the CP system there will be plenty of CPs available to the Klngons. 6 approximately every 2 days or so. Thus any pilot that wishes to fly a D5D should have no trouble getting one assigned (same goes for Feds and CADs, NCDs,etc), they just have to be a little more careful with them, unless they want to have to wait a day or so for another. This is the purpose of the CP rules, to make "SFC" specialty ships (Hex flippers, etc) more than just kamakazi fodder. You need to be a little more careful with them, but they will still be widely available to pilots that like to fly them, unlike the more restrictive DN/BCHs. You guys should have seen Jinn's original evil plan, he was going to make you pay for them out of the current BP system.

Keep in mind too that if all the CP ships that are built during a cycle are not immediately assigned and a pilot with one loses his, he can be assigned another out of that inventory.

For the record, my comment to Frank wasn't to dispute the SFB classification, but the GW4 classification. This also holds true for the F-DWD and F-CAD (which was an oddball anyways).

[Kroma BaSyl]

Which book is that from...the newer F&E manuel Krueg.  I have the earlier edition and none of the additional content and am beginning to think it might be worth the $$$ to get back up to date.

BTW, you can buy just the books from ADB directly for like $15 as opposed to rebuying the whole F&E package for $40 or so.

[FPF-DieHard]

The D5D is NOT a bombardment ship, it is a driect combat ship.   That is true, this is indicated by it's lack of special sensors.   

It is however a limited production SPECIALTY ship as indicated in the F&E production limits.  The Klingons in F&E could produce 4 DRONE ships per year maximum.  They could build a total of 16 K-D5 hulls in that time period.

[Kroma BaSyl]

It is however a limited production SPECIALTY ship as indicated in the F&E production limits.  The Klingons in F&E could produce 4 DRONE ships per year maximum.  They could build a total of 16 K-D5 hulls in that time period.

Yes DH hits on the central issue, which is "what does specialty mean?" Answer, what ever the hell we say it means. LOL

[KBF-Crim]

That's ok..we only need two anyways .....one for sears...and one for me...

[Kroma BaSyl]

That's ok..we only need two anyways .....one for sears...and one for me...

In your dreams, your getting the C5. <snicker>

[FPF-DieHard]

That's ok..we only need two anyways .....one for sears...and one for me...

In your dreams, your getting the C5. <snicker>

C5K is a good ship and out by 2273 in "our" universe. 

[FPF-Paladin]

i would hate to say this but the D5D IS a CL, not a line cruiser. It is on a CL class hull. I will look this up but i do think that Kroma is correct.

Hehe, guess maybe you haven't encountered LK or WS in one of these 'light cruisers', at least not while making any, ANY sort of mistake at all   Probably 75% of my overall lifetime losses in d2 campaigns have been to these guys....

*thinks hard about the making mistakes part... goes off to re memorize the D5D stats*

... bloody h*ll, I so want rematches with no AI involved.






(j/king mainly, a hats off to some of the Klinks I fear too.  I know it's a CL.  Come on, who doesn't miss some mild smack talk before a campaign anyway?)

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

Question: How many F-CADs, F-BCFs and F-FFLs were built?
Answer: One, three and none respectively.

How many K-D5Ds were built? Four initially (I think), and then built according to production points. The above ships, however, were not.

There are severe limitations in a SFC campaign when using an Order of Battle. For instance, on any given day, 50 players might loose, for example, 3 ships each, each replacing that ship with the same type. Lets say they all have standard heavy cruiser line ships. Even in a strict OOB, production could not replace even 150 standard cruisers according to Federation and Empire production rules.
To circumvent this, what has now traditionally been applied, is to apply production rules only to certain classes and types, which of course leaves much room for debate. Many conjectural ships are readily included (the F-FFL for example), while others (the K-D5D) were part of the normal production schedule (in fact, only production points limited the number of these ships). By part of normal production, that is, a certain number were built as is, not as conversions, although they could be converted.
The philosophy of recent times has been to designate the standard line cruisers (F-CA, F-CL, F-D7, F-D5) or base hulls and then depending upon how 'cheesy' the variants have been received, rate these variants as specialty ships. Classifying these ships into bombardment ships (if you have at least a particulr number of drone racks), carriers (if you have at least a particular number of fighters), etc. has given this more appeal, but only through an ad hoc fashion and is again open to debate.

What is worth more?? 6 drone racks on a Light Cruiser hull or 6 drone racks on a Dreadnought hull? 4 photon torpedoes on a Heavy Cruiser hull or 4 photon torpedoes on a Destroyer hull? Does BPV adequately take these things into consideration?

For the board game, it did. 20 years of playtesting and most of the ships BPVs were based on a per ship basis, not on what systems they had. It was a very synergistic algorithm that produced the BPVs for each ship based on testing in the board game. Not exactly the most precise methodology, but after 20 years, it works.
SFC, on the other hand, does not have 20 years of playtesting benefit, nor do we have a really well defined methodology for testing. Most of the comments made are anecdotal. In a real time environment, playerskill, reflexes etc. also make a huge difference that confounds accurate comparison. We do have the advantage of numbers though, in that we can see which ships players gravitate towards as soon as they become available, drone ships are popular in non-drone races, so are carriers. There is a popular opinion this upsets the balance of the game, and hence the term 'cheese' is applied.

We can see a maxum at work here, players will always pick the best ship they can with the best weapons according to their own playing style. An OOB is not a natural progression of player choice. It must be enforced. The problem though, is that it appears arbitrary. Use of production points does make it more meaningful, when linked to number of owned planets for instance, but this assumes some type of economy construct. The game has a very primitive economy construct, but this really only serves to limit the number and type of ships in the shipyard on any given turn. Not exactly an OOB.

A true implementation of OOB needs to have a well defined economy system with sufficient detail and complexity to make it (at least hypothetically) realistic and from it then, an OOB will be derived naturally. I think this is where we should be headed, based on what we've learnt from servers that have used a rules implementation of an economy.

[KBFLordKrueg]

Well said, MLady. 

[Kroma BaSyl]

Site updated to reflect rule clarification that Specialty Ship refits are free.

[RazalYllib]

I am in agreement TracyG,  the stock FnE OOB combined with the stock economic time frame of 6 months will not suffice in SFC due the the number of warm bodies involved, that goes for the Gorns though they are not warm blooded. 

  Some manner of restriction of availability of individual units has been "requested" by the player base and as is in all compromises, there is always a voice that is not always satisfied with the outcome.

  The FnE OOB should be a stepping off point for formulating any restriction to ship availability, and a good number here accept it as canon.  It is a touchy topic, not to approach lightly if you have an aversion to fire.

  SQL can control these variables, given clever scripting.  Bonk has demonstrated that by successfully decoupling the shipyard from the games economic model.  Much more complex things could be done.  I have updated by posting on potential front end for SQL, and the link follows.  In part one I explore an optional way of seeding the shipyard and a richer economy that grows over time.

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163346659.0.html

[Kroma BaSyl]

I am in agreement TracyG,  the stock FnE OOB combined with the stock economic time frame of 6 months will not suffice in SFC due the the number of warm bodies involved, that goes for the Gorns though they are not warm blooded. 

  Some manner of restriction of availability of individual units has been "requested" by the player base and as is in all compromises, there is always a voice that is not always satisfied with the outcome.

  The FnE OOB should be a stepping off point for formulating any restriction to ship availability, and a good number here accept it as canon.  It is a touchy topic, not to approach lightly if you have an aversion to fire.

  SQL can control these variables, given clever scripting.  Bonk has demonstrated that by successfully decoupling the shipyard from the games economic model.  Much more complex things could be done.  I have updated by posting on potential front end for SQL, and the link follows.  In part one I explore an optional way of seeding the shipyard and a richer economy that grows over time.

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163346659.0.html

Absolutely agree, with SQL a full OOB would be the way to go. However, SQL servers have still never proven to be stable with any significant amount of players on them, so until the source code in the hands of those that can stabilize the server package for SQL this is all just theoretical.

I will say that F&E is not necessarily the be all end all on OOB though, as many ships in SFC have a much different combat effectiveness than in SFB, so certain things need to be considered when balancing servers with full OOBs.

[Ktaqh jeH]

Speaking from professional experience, I think some broad definitions need to be made by the server management/campaign bubbas/bubbettes.  (That's what they do anyway!)

Point #1: Individual starship commanders are concerned, defacto, with all things at the "Tactical Level" of warfare.  They are (normally) assigned to their commands by their 'chain-of-command (CoC),' unless they bring their own toys to the fight, like royals/minor nobility outfitting their favorite galleon for the fight.  In this case, they are usually still told where to "go play" with their toys by the CoC.  Otherwise, they are uninvited from the party, or are assigned the title of "privateer" or the equivalent.  ("Assigned"... do you see a pattern here?)

In this last case, the players would then have more latitude to decide where they went hunting, but still would have to following the general wishes of their National (Racial?) Command Authority (NCA/RCA) or risk losing their "privateer" status.

Point #2: F&E is a "Strategic-Level" game/simulation loosely based on national/racial interests.  This is the level at which the numbers & types of starships to be built, and when they will be built, are decided upon by the NCA/RCA.  The politicians/economic tzars/pentagon/etc... make the decisions regarding macro-economics, such as overall taxation, use of natural resources, distribution of tax income to the various military arms (ground, naval, air, space, customs, etc...) and where all those brand new starships will be used.  (This level of warfare is, and should be, beyond the scope of the players and should not be a factor in a game such as SFC... per se...  but I digress.)

This fact alone makes the use of an Order of Battle (OoB) logical, in an SFC sort of way.  Players should be "assigned" to fly specific starships, which are "assigned" to operate in specific "theaters" of operation.  Example: a capitol ship, currently assigned to the Central Federation/Klingon Theater of operations, should not have the latitude to self-deploy to the Southern Hydran/Klingon Theater of operations just because the valiant captain wants to whup-up on those vile methane-breathers instead of those dishonorable, weak Humans.  At worst, summary execution, or at best, termination of a military career, for desertion and cowardess in the face of the enemy usually take place for stuff like this.  The level of warfare must be predetermined to remove any reasonable player doubt.

Point #3: The level of warfare that is never addressed within either SFB/F&E core rules is "Operational," which is the level between tactical and strategic that ties it all together. 

The available ships for a specified theater of operation are predetermined by the strategic level bubbas/bubbettes.  A specific number of specific types of starships are available in a given theater of operation.  PERIOD.  If the NCA/RCA decides that they would like to commit larger numbers of expensive starships to a particular theater, then the OoB of that theater will change... eventually.

Replacement starships may be made available to surviving commanders if the NCA/RCA actually trusts this commander with another starship (that's what penal-ships are for) or the newly arriving starships may already have a commander & crew assigned.  A commander who regularly loses his/her command cruiser may not be the best choice for that new heavy battlecruiser in the space dock... how 'bout that there escort cruiser instead, hmmm?  Always remember: fecal matter obeys the law of gravity.  Nothing says that the NCA/RCA has to be unwise.

Aside from all that, the individual starship commanders have the latitude, nay, the duty, to carry out their assigned duties "as briefed" or lose command of their starships.  The mission would be something like: "You are to patrol along the Lyran/Kzinti Mirak Neutral Zone until further orders are received from Higher Command."

Now... to decide just whom should be the different race's NCA/RCA...  hmmm...

Boy-howdy, that's a big can-o-worms, now aint' it!?