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?

[Kroma BaSyl]

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.

Psssssst DH, that's your que.

[Kroma BaSyl]

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. 

I would allow for command ships to be used as escorts too, just limit the escort sub from being a "Support" vessel.

[KHH Jakle]

You Tutu's on too tight.

Well....not so much.  If the Carrier is Heavy Cruiser or DN hull, then that's most often a conversion of the command version.

If the carrier is old light cruiser or FF hull sized, then the new 1 escort only rule should apply and then the 3rd ship can be whatever.

That leaves a narrow window - the War Cruiser Carrier hulls - where the command questions is muddy.  In my opinion their escort sub would have to be purely line.

My opinion

[Dfly]

The rulings on the PFs as it was made them nearly obsolete.  Trying to restrict them in any way will guarantee that no fleet will use PFs.  I Know that TSC's time with PFs in GZ is limited, but I also know that the cost of those whole 4 extra tiny ships can double the cost of the actual ship (the smaller hulls).  And to make matters worse, the actual ship is nearly useless in battle.  The only 2 that nearly make sense are the Gorn's 2 biggest hull carriers, and the added BPV to carry 4 PFs make the cost so high it would only ever come out in a scenario of say 700 or more.  IF GORNS were to take the DNP, then add the cost of 4 PFs, making 382 bpv in late era. the BCS with PFs would cost 364, nearly as much as the DNP. then have to add a useless escort, that would waste any effort in even trying to take a carrier.  As it is, if we took the DNP or BCS, all combat support ships are now gone from the list, as well as any command ships.  I do understand about not allowing a command ship.  Adding an escort is useless. 

Here are some numbers for the Gorn ships.

BDP(frig) costs 133, add 4 late PFs = 241 

TUGP costs 188, add 4 late PFs = 296        and the tug has 2 plF and 6 Ph1, whoopie

HDTP costs 200, add 4 late PFs = 308        and the ship has 2 plF and 5 Ph1, yahoooo

CMP cost 196, add 4 late PFs = 304           and the ship has 2 plF and 7 Ph1, neetoh

PFT cost 119, add 4 late PFs = 227            cost nearly doubles but total cost may be low enough to actually consider in a battle.

I dont know about most of you, but would you rather use BB (up to say 400 bpv) or a BCS costing 362( a heavy hull none the less).

My Proposal for the PFT class ships, would be to allow the PFT class ships(all of them, all races) to all be of the COMMAND class.  This would allow them to have a combat support ship, and an any ship.   The idea of having the command ship as needing to be no lower than by 1 level would need be applied.   This reason being that you could not have the Gorn BDP commanding a heavy hull support or any, because the BDP is a frig.  It could however command 2 light cruisers, considering it has the PFs.

Perhaps with this ruling, the PF races may feel it worth a tryout on the fighters.

I am not proposing this strictly because TSC is now Gorns.  I am hoping to help in ideas about this issue. 

[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.

if i were to take a tender(which i have never done as i can't see any senario which would allow me to) i would be against forcing pf races, to take an escort with it.with the fighters we have,the punch power is by far the worst of all races,at least roms and gorns have plasma which isn't effected by ecm unlike the pathetic disrupter of the lyran pf.any pf we have which is already considered a command varient(meaning at least it has a capability to defend itself)is rendered useless if you consider how much more bpv you would need to equip it with pfe's vs what another race could take(and were talking bb class ships)with the same amount of bpv...bcht---> 238 with 4 ints,add another(having checked recently)another 31 bpv per int to upgrade to pfe's so 238 + 124=362 bpv's to get a couple phaser 2's ,1 esg,and maybe 2 dizzy 1 per pfe.....not good deal.  now our tenders that are not command varients,just plain have no defensive weapons as most of them only have phaser 2's and 3's<---and this is no defense against another ship let alone drones. i would rather the rule stay as it is,ULTIMATELY, it doesn't matter to me,as given the current selection of both ships and pf's, i would never recommend or use tenders(lyran) against anyone,as it is a waste of bpv,and the funny thing about the lyran pf's and tender is,they were suppose to be the cheapest fighters out there in the sfb world,from what i understand

[TraumaTech]

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

i would say against both Jakle,as most of the races that have decent fighters have decent escorts which act defensively as well as offensively, as for the pft's being forced to take an escort ..........well,i have already answered that above

[Corbomite]

Why don't we forget the whole thing as you all have missed the point and turned this into a "my race sucks here" thread. I was just trying to un-lopside a rule that makes no sense with the material we have. I was simply trying to consolodate the set up we have into a simple rule for all races, not disect the strengths and weaknesses of every Escort in the game. All you guys are saying is that your Escorts suck and you don't want to have to be forced to play them, but that you don't give a damn about anybody else in the same circumstance. If that is the case why don't we take Carriers, Escorts and Tenders out of the matricies completely? I consider a PF Tender a Carrier. If you do not, then there is no discussion necessary.

[KHH Jakle]

Sorry Corbo - that's pretty much my issue.  I don't consider PFT a carrier.....cause it's not.  Yeah, an SFB-ism that can be debated as to how relavent it is to SFC, but that's the corner I am in.

If Carrier races - the only ones who are forces to take escorts to get a carrier - would be more inclined to  take a carrier if they could supplant one of the escorts with it's line version, which would offset the shoddy implentation of fighters in this game, then I think that would be a good thing.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Why don't we forget the whole thing as you all have missed the point and turned this into a "my race sucks here" thread. I was just trying to un-lopside a rule that makes no sense with the material we have. I was simply trying to consolodate the set up we have into a simple rule for all races, not disect the strengths and weaknesses of every Escort in the game. All you guys are saying is that your Escorts suck and you don't want to have to be forced to play them, but that you don't give a damn about anybody else in the same circumstance. If that is the case why don't we take Carriers, Escorts and Tenders out of the matricies completely? I consider a PF Tender a Carrier. If you do not, then there is no discussion necessary.

Corbo, now you need to lightenup. We are in fact trying to make sense of the material we have. Your need to consolidate rules aside, that doesn't help the situation any. The situation is that no one flys tenders or carriers under the current rules for various reasons. You proposed a rule consolidation, that clearly favored direct fire carrier races. Plain and simple. I got no problem with making carriers more available and less restricted, but why do we need to further limit the already never flown tenders as part of that? SFB precendence? No, as Jakle has stated. Your logic escapes me. If you consider a PF tender a carrier that is just your opinion, it is not supported in the source material or the current shiplist and I see no reason why it should be different here. In fact the game play evidence, that you choose to scoff at, shows exactly the oppisite, since the Tender races happen to have less combat efficient escorts. So sorry, I only like half of your idea, Jakle, has about got it right with his last post I think.

[Corbomite]

...since the Tender races happen to have less combat efficient escorts.

Yeah, the G-CLE (just as an example) is a real POS. I wouldn't want that ship on my side.    Every race has combat worthy escorts. You guys might want to look at the ship list once in awhile.

[Green]

Why don't we forget the whole thing as you all have missed the point and turned this into a "my race sucks here" thread. I was just trying to un-lopside a rule that makes no sense with the material we have. I was simply trying to consolodate the set up we have into a simple rule for all races, not disect the strengths and weaknesses of every Escort in the game. All you guys are saying is that your Escorts suck and you don't want to have to be forced to play them, but that you don't give a damn about anybody else in the same circumstance. If that is the case why don't we take Carriers, Escorts and Tenders out of the matricies completely? I consider a PF Tender a Carrier. If you do not, then there is no discussion necessary.

Actually Corbo, your arguments made sense.  I liked the current rule, but can see the need to change to allow a Carrier+Escort+Line as opposed to Carier+Escort+Escort.

[Corbomite]

Ships and actual game aside, I was looking at the rules and saw one set of players forced into a situation to get something they want and another set free to choose whatever they want to get essentially the same thing. I just made a compromise and made one Escort mandatory for all attririon unit ship configs. In SFB all races (except Feds) have fighters and PF's so it does balance out. Here we don't have that luxury and I feel it isn't fair to place those restrictions on one part, but not the other. Removing one Escort as a way to mitigate this is only half the isssue if it is still only mandatory for one group and not the other.

[Kroma BaSyl]

...since the Tender races happen to have less combat efficient escorts.

Yeah, the G-CLE (just as an example) is a real POS. I wouldn't want that ship on my side.    Every race has combat worthy escorts. You guys might want to look at the ship list once in awhile.

I never said not combat worthy, I said not as combat efficient. The G-CLE is no comparison to the NEC or MDC, etc. You still haven't bothered to state any rational (other than you consider them carriers) to justify classifying them the same as carriers, even though the source material doesn't.

[Dfly]

Hey ya, I would love to fly a light cruiser------GORN CLE (2 plS, 2 plD + phasers)--------- as an escort.  Being forced to take this ship(in late era) instead of the BC (2 plS, 2 plF, +more phasers, more hull, more power, more shielding) or even a CM(nearly same weaps as BC) or CS( PlR instead of the 2S)  seems to make perfect sense ??? . I do agree that your first part of the idea of letting true carriers only have 1 escort is a good one.  I do not support however the idea , for any race, that the PF carriers(which are allowed only 4 PFs, compared to the actual 6 allowed in the original SFB) need to take an ESCORT.....  As far as what that ship does( or is supposed to do), it is supposed to help control a section of space.  this is why i suggested at best  all ships that carry 4 PFs be based as a command ship.

Could we not implement both parts.  The part where the actual carriers be allowed only 1 escort, while the PF ships be all listed as command ships.  This will certainly help out the carrier fleets(ISC-FED-HYD in particular), and at least not hinder even more the GORN LYRAN ROM(though not in this cycle).  Odds are that any PF race will not be taking PFs anyway, even with this suggested rule change, but at least the fighter races will most likely look at taking fighters.  I know that if TSC was a fighter race, we would be looking at taking fighters with the rule changes.......

[Dfly]

One thing I forgot to mention, the CLE for gorns is only available in late or advanced......       so much for actual escorts in mid.

[KHH Jakle]

As far as what that ship does( or is supposed to do), it is supposed to help control a section of space.  this is why i suggested at best  all ships that carry 4 PFs be based as a command ship.

Your confusing a PF Tender with a Space Control Ship - a Dreadnought or BCH hulled ship that carried (in SFB) both Fighters and PF's.  Those were Command ships by right of their Class (DN's and BCH's) as much as their overall role.

A straight PF Tender is merely a conveyor for attrition units - more scout and repair platform than command unit. 

Again, if Carrier races (that's the ones with fighters) feel that the weakness of their escorts is such that having to take two escorts is too much a liability, I think subbing one of the escorts out with it's line counterpart is a balance, logical step. 

[Corbomite]

I never said not combat worthy, I said not as combat efficient. The G-CLE is no comparison to the NEC or MDC, etc. You still haven't bothered to state any rational (other than you consider them carriers) to justify classifying them the same as carriers, even though the source material doesn't.

What part of "the source material doesn't really apply here" escapes you?

One thing I forgot to mention, the CLE for gorns is only available in late or advanced......       so much for actual escorts in mid.

PF's are too. So what's your point?

[Kroma BaSyl]

What part of "the source material doesn't really apply here" escapes you?

The part where you saying it has anything to do with the price of tea in china. It applies here more than in the source in fact. You have yet to show how it doesn't. Or why further restricting ships that won't get flown anyway has to be a part of lossening restrictions on others that then might.

[Corbomite]

If you can't see that the fighters and PF's in this game bear very little resemblance to their SFB counter-parts in fact or form I cannot continue this converstation because you are being puposely obtuse and refusing to acknowledge the obvious. I could list all the missing rules and conditions that are omitted and all the systems that don't funtion as designed or at all in some cases, but what's the point? As I said before, there is nothing to discuss on my end if you won't think out of your SFB box.

[762_XC]

He said box!

[Kroma BaSyl]

If you can't see that the fighters and PF's in this game bear very little resemblance to their SFB counter-parts in fact or form I cannot continue this converstation because you are being puposely obtuse and refusing to acknowledge the obvious.

Saying they are different in SFB than in SFC ain't the same as proving that carriers and tenders in SFC should be treated the same. You are the one being purposely obtuse here. The G-BDP, PFT, and CMP are not nearly the combat equivalents of the ships you want to loosen the restrictions on while raising it on them.  You need to look at more of how the rule effects this game than just how succinctly it can be written, without offering up any other rational as to why "SFB ftp/pf not = to SFC ftr/pf must equal SFC tenders and carriers are the same".  Because "Cuz Corbo says" ain't reason enough.

I could list all the missing rules and conditions that are omitted and all the systems that don't funtion as designed or at all in some cases, but what's the point? As I said before, there is nothing to discuss on my end if you won't think out of your SFB box.

You still haven't said anything about why carriers and tenders are the same due to the difference in SFB and SFC, so no discuss takes place. 

[Corbomite]

Fine then lets forget it. I just wanted a consensus on my idea, not an arguement. I think the two games diverge enough on this subject to warrant us making new rules for them. You don't. There is no common ground to start. If you like things the way they are then keep them that way. I will continue to use the loopholes to my advantage.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Fine then lets forget it. I just wanted a consensus on my idea, not an arguement.

Translation: I have no case therefore don't want to debate you on the merits of my position. <snicker>

I think the two games diverge enough on this subject to warrant us making new rules for them.

As do I. You just haven't shown why they should here.

There is no common ground to start. If you like things the way they are then keep them that way.

I said you should treat carriers as you suggested, I just disagree that tenders should now be treated that way as well (and have stated the reasons why). I am for loosening the escort restriction on carriers, and for giving carriers and tenders to all races eventually. Sounds like some common ground to me, but it seems it is all or nothing with you today.

I will continue to use the loopholes to my advantage.

The rule change you suggest doesn't close any loop holes for you to exploit. It simply loosened restrictions on you why placing further restrictions on your enemies. Plain and simple.

[Dfly]

My Apologies, I was talking like there were PFs in mid era, and there are none.     but there are fighters in early and mid, just no PFs.  much fairer that way.

[Corbomite]

Fine then lets forget it. I just wanted a consensus on my idea, not an arguement.

Translation: I have no case therefore don't want to debate you on the merits of my position. <snicker>

Whoops! You caught me! Boy is my face red!

I think the two games diverge enough on this subject to warrant us making new rules for them.

As do I. You just haven't shown why they should here.

You can show a blind man all the bright colors you want. He still won't see them.

There is no common ground to start. If you like things the way they are then keep them that way.

I said you should treat carriers as you suggested, I just disagree that tenders should now be treated that way as well (and have stated the reasons why). I am for loosening the escort restriction on carriers, and for giving carriers and tenders to all races eventually. Sounds like some common ground to me, but it seems it is all or nothing with you today.

And I won't back off on my position that all atrrition unit fleets should be handled the same, so no, there is no common ground. Later developments in hacking the source code don't concern me at this time.

I will continue to use the loopholes to my advantage.

The rule change you suggest doesn't close any loop holes for you to exploit. It simply loosened restrictions on you why placing further restrictions on your enemies. Plain and simple.

And I could claim you are trying to protect your advantage. It's not my fault if others are not imaginative enough to take advantage when they can. I plan to fly many races if I can in this league so your protests of racial preference are bogus and cheap. As I said, no skin off my back, but I hope I can convince the FPF to fly Romulan next cycle.

[FPF-DieHard]

You can show a blind man all the bright colors you want. He still won't see them.

He can't skydive either, it's scares the sh*t out of his dog 

[Kroma BaSyl]

You can show a blind man all the bright colors you want. He still won't see them.

Corbo, you have yet to show your colors. You have not yet posted any rational to support your position that tenders should be treated differently here than there other than to say "because I feel they should be the same". Sorry but that ain't showing us your colors, just your contempt. Either make your case with facts or don't. All you have done so far is say that the rules could be reduced, and have posted no other rational as to why they should be reduced in the way you propose.

And I won't back off on my position that all atrrition unit fleets should be handled the same, so no, there is no common ground.

Then go ahead and choose not to fly carriers even if Jakle loosens the restrictions on them to make your point, because if you don't come up with something better than "Cuz Corbo says so" you won't be winning many debates.

This is all so funny actually. You started out wanting to create a rule that would give fighter races a reason to fly carriers and tender races a reason to fly escorts. What you then proposed was a rule that did in fact succeed in giving fighter races more reason to fly carriers, but fail in that requiring PF races to take escorts with tenders (which will never be flown anyway with current less restrictive rule) does not do anything to encourage PF races to take either escorts or tenders. In fact it probably does the exact opposite of your "stated" intention, and takes away the slim chance that a tenders race would actually ever take an escort (which are currently treated as support).

The best part is how, while lacking any substantive argument for your position, you try to pretend that my resistance to your proposal is merely protecting my advantage. LOL...that's right Corbo, you got me, I am just trying to make sure that the Gorn can continue to dominate the league, as we have been while flying un-escorted Tenders. We are Unbeatable in these things.

Later developments in hacking the source code don't concern me at this time.

It doesn't require the source code to give tenders and carriers to all races.

And I could claim you are trying to protect your advantage.

You "could claim" anything you want, but to make a case for your position you need offer some proof or rational based on facts, and so far you haven't even shown that I have any "advantage" to protect.

It's not my fault if others are not imaginative enough to take advantage when they can.

Agreed, but this time we are not going to allow you to take advantage of us with your scheme to both bolster your own race while further limiting your opponents in one elegant rule.

I plan to fly many races if I can in this league so your protests of racial preference are bogus and cheap. As I said, no skin off my back, but I hope I can convince the FPF to fly Romulan next cycle.

Figures you would pick the tender race with the most combat efficient tenders to make your point. Let me guess, you were the one that convinced to FPF to fly ISCheese too?


XOXOXOXO
Kroma

PS, <snicker>

[Corbomite]

Nope, ISC-Phaser did that. The Roms may have better than average Tenders, but they can only field 6 PF's under the current system and the Gorn and Lyrans can field 8 (points permitting). The lack of a good Phaser array on many of their PF's and the cloaking problem makes all but the CENd variants unplayable. I was choosing the worst one, but oh well, the world according to Kroma and all that. Maybe we'll go Gorn.


OK, for the shiplist challenged and my lazy Gorn friend who wants me to do all his thinking for him....


In the first match, game 3 we have 628 Late set up. I'm not going to tell you the ships (see if you can guess), but for 620 BPV the Gorn can field a fleet with three very combat worthy ships just by themselves with an additional PF loadout that gives you in total:

1 Plas R

3 Plas S

1 Plas G

20 Plas F 

and

36 Ph-1's

as your heavy armaments. For between 626 and 628 you can get varying combos that could give you between 2 to 4 Plas D as well and only lose 2 Plas F at the worst. Now, you are telling me you can't do anything with that?

[KHH Jakle]

The Roms may have better than average Tenders, but they can only field 6 PF's under the current system and the Gorn and Lyrans can field 8 (points permitting).

Interesting....

Yeah, the Gorn can get 8 if they field the CSF, which is their 'new heavy cruiser', as a line ship along with a PFT and a PF carrying Command Variant, but that's the only way

Every Lyran ship has a PF carrying variant, so they can easily get 8 with a PFT, or 6 with just casual tenders.  Of course FSD won't every touch a PF, so it be a rarity to see that...but would still be interesting to see it in a real battle.

Roms - you either get a PFT or a command variant that is a casual tender, which limits them to 6.

[KHH Jakle]

I plan to fly many races if I can in this league so your protests of racial preference are bogus and cheap. As I said, no skin off my back, but I hope I can convince the FPF to fly Romulan next cycle.

Figures you would pick the tender race with the most combat efficient tenders to make your point. Let me guess, you were the one that convinced to FPF to fly ISCheese too?

Nope, ISC-Phaser did that.

Hmmm....

[FPF-DieHard]

This is kinda like arguing whether Mighty Mouse could beat up Superman.   

[KHH Jakle]

That's how it usually goes...

This is how the old council of 12's usually worked...

[Corbomite]

Yeah, the Gorn can get 8 if they field the CSF, which is their 'new heavy cruiser', as a line ship along with a PFT and a PF carrying Command Variant, but that's the only way

Not true (if you meant in general and not the fight I listed), look again. 

[KHH Jakle]

Yeah, the Gorn can get 8 if they field the CSF, which is their 'new heavy cruiser', as a line ship along with a PFT and a PF carrying Command Variant, but that's the only way

Not true (if you meant in general and not the fight I listed), look again. 

ah...CMFF

[Corbomite]

LOL! There ia another way...

[Kroma BaSyl]

Yeah, the Gorn can get 8 if they field the CSF, which is their 'new heavy cruiser', as a line ship along with a PFT and a PF carrying Command Variant, but that's the only way

Not true (if you meant in general and not the fight I listed), look again. 

ah...CMFF

All moot, because the PFT ain't making the list, there are better combos without the expensive PFs to take.

You still haven't shown how the tenders, in this game (SFC), are the equal of the carriers or how the escorts stack up. I guess you are just avoiding the real issue.

[Corbomite]

Just because you don't know how to use those options doesn't mean that people that can really play can't. I listed an incredible fleet for a decent price that I know I could kick ass in by using simple tactics. Of course it depends on terrain and who I'm fighting, but the option is there if I wanted it. The "people don't use them anyway so its not really an issue" argument doesn't hold water. Just because you don't use them doesn't mean some industrious person in the future won't. You asked for an example of why I think Tenders should be treated like Carriers and I gave one by listing a possible fleet and it's firepower (well comparable to or exceeding a Carrier fleet's alfa capability at 524 points, averaging Phasers and not counting PH-3's at range 4) to show that if you have 7 - 11 well armed, shielded and (for the PF's) infinitely repairable targets on the board, you are dangerous enough to be consdiered a Carrier group.

[KHH Jakle]

LOL! There ia another way...

Then you just need to tell me - because you might be looking at something that you think is available only because I overlooked it on the matrix or something.

[Corbomite]

LOL! There ia another way...

Then you just need to tell me - because you might be looking at something that you think is available only because I overlooked it on the matrix or something.

You can always take a BCS or DNP and use two CSF or a CSF and a CMFF.

[Kroma BaSyl]

LOL! There ia another way...

Then you just need to tell me - because you might be looking at something that you think is available only because I overlooked it on the matrix or something.

You can always take a BCS or DNP and use two CSF or a CSF and a CMFF.

You could but you won't, because it is to high a price to pay and there are better combo's. Also Corb, pointing out that 8 PFs are possible isn't the same thing as showing that they are unbalancing at the BPV ranges they are allowable in. Your skills at logic are waning.

[KHH Jakle]

LOL! There ia another way...

Then you just need to tell me - because you might be looking at something that you think is available only because I overlooked it on the matrix or something.

You can always take a BCS or DNP and use two CSF or a CSF and a CMFF.

Oh good lord...yes, obviously you could take two CSF, two CMFF or one of both in place of one of either and a PF toting command variant.

I thought you were saying there was some other Gorn Line ship that was a casual tender.

[Dfly]

I believe that one of the reasons most gorns dont take the PFs is that most teams flying against the PF instinctively know to make sure to stay out of the PLF range, making the PLF pretty much useless.  a few good drones, or a mess of dizzy+phasers can kill a PF and the PF does not get to hit with plF.   I realize that 8 PF in a squadron will definitely make a good punch in time with the phasers alone, and it would be with the phasers alone as there are so few big Plasmas available to hit a ship going fast.