Topic: PBR Carrier Rules Tweak Suggestion

[Corbomite]

I feel that the current Carrier/PF Tender rules are unbalanced and give several races little or no real reason to try and field a carrier group and the PF races no reason at all to field an Escort unless they know their opponent will field a carrier group. The fact that some races escorts are dual purpose, i.e. they can be used as well offensively as defensively and others are mostly defensive in nature also adds to the issue. I would like to meld the two set-ups we have right now into one cohesive rule for both fighter and PF races. I would like to see it changed in the following way:

NOTE: If you are unclear as to what I am talking about, please read the PBR Rules Links thread stuck at the top of the forum and select the Rules link.


True Carriers and PF Tenders count as the Command Variant. You are required to take at least one Escort class vessel, but may take two if you like. The third ship may be an unlisted line ship of any type/size. The fighters/PF's fill the role of Combat Support.


There are several precedents for commanding from a smaller vessel and the rules as they stand now do not forbid a smaller command ship leading a larger vessel, only that Escorts may escort carriers of like size or be smaller, which should still be the case if we change the rule.

[Dfly]

I can see where your idea comes from, and agree with your idea, for most races.   There are a several races that may or can really benefit from this, including some races that dont need the rule change.   But yes, many races are not using the fighter capabilities, especially in PF fleets. 

[KHH Jakle]

PF races (have) no reason at all to field an Escort

Well....they literally don't have any reason at all to field an escort, as those escorts don't have any carriers to escort. 


When it's all said an done though, I have hard time seeing why incentive HAS to be found to fly EVERYTHING.   


If the argument is that PF races don't want to field an escort because they don't want to waste that valuable Combat Support slot on an escort when they have other alternatives, I can see PF race escorts being another reason why there may be a need for a new PBR bucket: The 'only one of these type per squadron' rule. 

This would allow a team to supplant a line ship with a ship from this group if they desired.  I might have to better explain this:  there are a lot of ships in some cases are unrestricted and others that fall in Support that should have some other designation.  They're special because they are rare, but not so much so that they should take up that Support slot - which really should only be for true support types.  These should be allowed in line slots - but limited to only one per squadron.  The Fed DDL would be an example of this.  It can fill a line slot, but there shouldn't be a whole squadron of these things.  Fast Cruisers are another good example, and I'd probably supplant the new rule I made for them with a more expanded one. 


Oh, and about actual carriers:  I had been playing around with providing some extra clarity around carrier groups.  Don't get too excited, it deals with the small carriers.  Right now the rules require both the 2nd and 3rd ship to be Escorts.  Well, realistically, carriers built on Destroyer and Frigate hulls - as well as some built on older Light Cruiser Hull's usually only had ONE escort (I think that would include CVE's Corbo).  In a 3 ship squadron, that 3rd ship could realistically be either Command, Line or Support.  This could possibly make smaller carriers/escorts viable selections without compromising the source material.

While I am thinking about it (and Corbo hinted at it): I think there needs to be some sort of stipulation about the hull size of the command variant relative to the rest of the ships in the squadron.  An F5C shouldn't be the command ship for 2 D7's.  It's an excuse to maximize the potential of the smaller hulls in a squadron.  Just as there is an Escort hull rule requiring that the escort can't be a larger hull than the ship it's escorts, the command ship can't be a smaller hull than the largest ship in the formation - or at least a reasonable compromise, like you can command up one hull class so that a D5L could command 2xD7's, but and F5C couldn't.

So there's 3 tweaks

[Corbomite]

I'm not really trying to have an excuse to fly everything. I just looked at the rules and thought they were lopsided and unfair. As there have been so many views, but no line of comments, I'll assume most people don't give a hoot.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I like Corbos idea.

[762_XC]

I like it too. But I'm not crazy about forcing the command ship to be the biggest hull class (Jakle's idea).

[KHH Jakle]

But I'm not crazy about forcing the command ship to be the biggest hull class (Jakle's idea).

Why?  Not even the 'one level down' option (allowing Light Cruiser Command hulls to command Heavy Cruisers)?  All that prevents is the Destroyer Leader being the command vessel for Heavy Cruisers - which is just goofy.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Interesting, I do like the 'one level down' option. 

I also like the ability to take one escort, that would make the likely-hood of a Hydran carrier actually making an appearance in a battle a bit more than 'none'.

[FPF-DieHard]

I like corbo's Idea   

[Corbomite]

I have no problem with the one level down part. It probably won't be much of an issue anyway as the ship in question will always be the last ship chosen, after fightr/PF loadout and the mandatory Escort. Chances are it will be a DD anyway! 

[Corbomite]

So is this worthy of a vote or should I just forget the whole thing?

[Kroma BaSyl]

Right now, the BCS and DNP count as both Command and Support slots, but no requirement to use a worthless PlasD escort. All other tenders count as Support only without escort requirements.

I may have misunderstood your proposal originally or you edited it slightly, but how would your rule change effect tender races again, because as it is now they rarely get used (and the BCS/DNP never do)?

[Corbomite]

Mainly it requires them to field at least one Escort if a Full PF Tender is chosen as the Command Variant (right now they are not required to field an Escort for any reason, but fighter races are forced to use two Escorts to use a Carrier). All full Tenders would be considered Command just as Carriers are now for the fighter races. The fighters/PF's would then count as the Combat Support. The third slot is open to any non-listed ship of any size or another Escort. Jakle stated his "one step down" idea for a limit to Command Variants leading larger vessels, which I have no real problem with if that is how people want it.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Mainly it requires them to field at least one Escort if a Full PF Tender is chosen as the Command Variant (right now they are not required to field an Escort for any reason, but fighter races are forced to use two Escorts to use a Carrier). All full Tenders would be considered Command just as Carriers are now for the fighter races. The fighters/PF's would then count as the Combat Support. The third slot is open to any non-listed ship of any size or another Escort. Jakle stated his "one step down" idea for a limit to Command Variants leading larger vessels, which I have no real problem with if that is how people want it.

Then your rules change further restricts the use of Tenders, which don't get used now anyways, by requiring them to take an escort. Plasma escort( and Lyran as well), simply don't have the offensive power that direct fire escorts have, which is why I thought tenders  didn't have this requirement in the first place.

So if I understand this correctly, in the case of the Gorn BCS and DNP they would continue to fill both the Command and Support slots (as they do now), plus you would add the further requirement that they take a next to useless escort. In the case of the PFT, BDP, and CMP, (which are currently just considered combat support) you would make them both Command and Support, plus add the escort requirement.

Let me know if I mis-interpreted anything here. But if this is the case I don't support the idea anymore. I am all for lifting restrictions on carriers to get more of them out there, but not if it means further restricting tenders, which already have a steep hill to climb before one ever sees battle.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Mind you Corbo, I do see the issue with the ISC in particular, as they are the one fighter race with crappy escorts, making their carriers fleets even more unlikely than other races. But hey, do you really have room for all those Cavets with all those PPDs.  <snicker>

Also, the one part of your rule that is still confusing me is where you say "if a Full PF Tender is chosen as the Command Variant", does this mean I can take a Full PF Tender and NOT choose it as the Command Variant?

[KHH Jakle]

All full Tenders would be considered Command just as Carriers are now for the fighter races.

Technically, the carrier's aren't considered command.  It's just that since the whole squadron is the carrier group, the carrier becomes the defacto leader of the carrier group.  But this would cease to automatically be the case if you made the requirement only 1 escort.  Then whether the carrier filled the command slot would depend on what carrier it was.  F-CVA and F-CVS, yes.  F-DWV, no

[KHH Jakle]

Plasma escort (and Lyran as well), simply don't have the offensive power that direct fire escorts have, which is why I thought tenders  didn't have this requirement in the first place.

Up until the ISC PPD thing, no special accomodation has been made to any race or class of ships to make up for any perceived weakness under PBR.  Tender's are not required to have escorts because they don't have escorts in SFB.  Period. 

Escorts are there to escort Fighter carriers, and if a mod that gives fighters to all races is ever adopted for 'League' play, then they would have the same escort/carrier rules as every other race.

[KHH Jakle]

Here's a counter proposal to Corbo's offer:

Take the Carrier rule as it stands now.  Each carrier still requires 2 escorts.  However, now you can supplant one of those escorts with the line version of an escort:

for Feds that would mean:
NEC/NAC: NCL, NCL+
ECL: CL, CL+
DE: DD, DDG, DDL
DWA: DW
FFE: FF, FFG

Something along those lines.   X versions may not be used. 

PFT's remain Combat Support without any escort rules. 

[TraumaTech]

Mainly it requires them to field at least one Escort if a Full PF Tender is chosen as the Command Variant (right now they are not required to field an Escort for any reason, but fighter races are forced to use two Escorts to use a Carrier). All full Tenders would be considered Command just as Carriers are now for the fighter races. The fighters/PF's would then count as the Combat Support. The third slot is open to any non-listed ship of any size or another Escort. Jakle stated his "one step down" idea for a limit to Command Variants leading larger vessels, which I have no real problem with if that is how people want it.

Then your rules change further restricts the use of Tenders, which don't get used now anyways, by requiring them to take an escort. Plasma escort( and Lyran as well), simply don't have the offensive power that direct fire escorts have, which is why I thought tenders didn't have this requirement in the first place.

So if I understand this correctly, in the case of the Gorn BCS and DNP they would continue to fill both the Command and Support slots (as they do now), plus you would add the further requirement that they take a next to useless escort. In the case of the PFT, BDP, and CMP, (which are currently just considered combat support) you would make them both Command and Support, plus add the escort requirement.

Let me know if I mis-interpreted anything here. But if this is the case I don't support the idea anymore. I am all for lifting restrictions on carriers to get more of them out there, but not if it means further restricting tenders, which already have a steep hill to climb before one ever sees battle.

and i might add speaking to lyran tenders only(as i don't know the cost value that gorns have) but lyran tenders are prohibitly expensive and that is just to get the low end int's.for the most part neither the ship by itself or with fighters are worth a dam unless it's target is already crippled.

examples  the lyran npf with 4 ints cost 206 bpv's upgrade them to pfe's and u just added if i remember correctly either either 84 bpv's to it's cost or 124 bpv.i think the ints cost 19 or 29 per....pfe's on average cost 50 bpv's.between the cost and thier lack of any punch unless attacking a crippled ship ......FSD would be against any change in the rule regarding carriers and thier escorts

[KHH Jakle]

against carriers and their escorts TT - or the status of PFT's?