Topic: PBR Carrier Rules Tweak Suggestion

[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.