Topic: PBR Carrier Rules Tweak Suggestion

[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!