Topic: Battle Tugs

[762_XC]

...are classed as support ships in the matrix. Shouldn't they be command ships? That was their purpose in SFB.

[Dfly]

in SFB some battle tugs were used as Command ships, but with the matrix we have now, it would mean you could take a BT and another tug in the same grouping if you move the BT to Command.
This was not something that happens in SFB.  I think changing that would mean re-alinging all the tugs and matrixes.

[762_XC]

True, but it also means now you can take a BT and a DN, which also never happened. A simple "one tug no matter what" rule would prevent what you suggest.

[KHH Jakle]

in SFB some battle tugs were used as Command ships, but with the matrix we have now, it would mean you could take a BT and another tug in the same grouping if you move the BT to Command.
This was not something that happens in SFB.  I think changing that would mean re-alinging all the tugs and matrixes.

I could just as easily treat BT's the same way that the G-DNP is treated - a command ship that also takes up the combat support slot.

[KHH Jakle]

...are classed as support ships in the matrix. Shouldn't they be command ships? That was their purpose in SFB.

FYI - this had come up once before but 'everybody' poo-poo'd it, saying tugs were rarely taken anyway.

[762_XC]

I don't see that as being an argument against it. The whole purpose of PBR in my mind is to provide a logical SFB-like context for fleet makeup, is it not?

Anyway they do get taken.

[Dfly]

sure,  1 tug max, and  never to be with a DN? and the BT falls under command and combat support

[KHH Jakle]

I don't see that as being an argument against it. The whole purpose of PBR in my mind is to provide a logical SFB-like context for fleet makeup, is it not?

I didn't see it as a decent argument either...but didn't feel strongly enough about it to push it.

And this is the purpose of PBR.

[KHH Jakle]

Maybe I'll just include this as a rider on whatever final version of PBR v 4.0 gets approved 

[Kroma BaSyl]

I see no point in further complicating the rules on this. BTs as support is fine as is. Making them Command/Support is OK I guess but unnecessary. However, if BT were treated as Command/Support the Light Battle tugs should not, just the full BTs IMO.

[KHH Jakle]

Making them Command/Support is OK I guess but unnecessary. However, if BT were treated as Command/Support the Light Battle tugs should not, just the full BTs IMO.

I would agree.  Just the BT's

[Nomad]

Leave the BT where they are.
They are rarely taken anyway.

 

[Green]

sure,  1 tug max, and  never to be with a DN? and the BT falls under command and combat support

Makes sense.

[762_XC]

FYI, from the source material:

(S8.331) There can be no more than one size class 2 ship (dreadnoughts, most CVAs and SCSs) in the fleet. Size-2 ships never appear with less than three other ships, two of them from the same race as the size-2 ship.

<snip>

(S8.46) TUGS: No more than one tug (including LTTs) can be included. This does not count tugs carrying cargo pods (or self-defense pods, but no other type) in a scenario where the mission is to deliver cargo. This does not count tugs carrying troop transport pods (or self-defense pods, or hangar pods with GAS shuttles instead of fighters, but no other type) in a scenario where the objective is to deliver troops.

Full battle tugs are invariably size class 2. An LTT with a light battle pod is size class 3.

[KHH Jakle]

FYI, from the source material:

(S8.331) There can be no more than one size class 2 ship (dreadnoughts, most CVAs and SCSs) in the fleet. Size-2 ships never appear with less than three other ships, two of them from the same race as the size-2 ship.

This was waived in order to allow Dreadnought's to be used in our 3v3 battles.

Personally, wouldn't bother me to forbid all dread hull's as a more literal translations.  But it was ignored in order to make PBR more palatable to the masses.  Keep in mind, this was also a year ago...

[FPF-DieHard]

Personally, wouldn't bother me to forbid all dread hull's as a more literal translations.  But it was ignored in order to make PBR more palatable to the masses.  Keep in mind, this was also a year ago...

This way leads to madness . . .   

[762_XC]

Given a three ship limit I can see waiving the three escort minimum rule. But why allow two or three size class-2 ships?

[KHH Jakle]

I don't see how you could get 3 - but you could get 2 (by your definition - which I am not saying is wrong): DN & BT

[762_XC]

You're right, you can only get two. But the question still stands: why allow two size class-2 ships?

[FPF-DieHard]

why allow two size class-2 ships?

Because 3 would be silly 

[Nomad]

FYI, from the source material:

(S8.331) There can be no more than one size class 2 ship (dreadnoughts, most CVAs and SCSs) in the fleet. Size-2 ships never appear with less than three other ships, two of them from the same race as the size-2 ship.

This was waived in order to allow Dreadnought's to be used in our 3v3 battles.

Personally, wouldn't bother me to forbid all dread hull's as a more literal translations.  But it was ignored in order to make PBR more palatable to the masses.  Keep in mind, this was also a year ago...

If you don't like Dreads and or Dread and BT combo , don't make even more rules to make PBR even more complicated.

The easy solution is to lower the BVP values.

When you have TBVP values of 750 Late you have to take a dread and a BT just to use up the BVP.
If you get a BVP of 300-350 late, you probably not going to take a dread.

I think the reason we are having this discussion in that the TRBG values for this cycle are a little on the high side.

[FPF-DieHard]

Nomad kinda has a point BPV more or less is BPV.  Has anyone really been owned by a tug lately?

We did see a DNL/Monitor COmbo that looked linda evil.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

SoV used a tug to good effect against Lyrans this cycle and last cycle.

[762_XC]

I'm not worried about anyone getting pwnt by a battle tug. I asked the question only because it seems completely illogical to me to have a dreadnought and a battle tug (which is really a substitute dreadnought) allowed to fly together under PBR.

It just doesn't seem PBR-ish.

[FPF-Bach]

Nomad kinda has a point BPV more or less is BPV.  Has anyone really been owned by a tug lately?

We did see a DNL/Monitor COmbo that looked linda evil.

We used that combo first last cycle.

[KHH Jakle]

I'm not worried about anyone getting pwnt by a battle tug. I asked the question only because it seems completely illogical to me to have a dreadnought and a battle tug (which is really a substitute dreadnought) allowed to fly together under PBR.

It just doesn't seem PBR-ish.

 I agree with you. 

[Dfly]

I agree that the BT and Dred combo seems non PBRish.   I do know that as Klingons in all previous cycles, we enjoyed using the BT quite a bit.  I know many of our adversaries hated facing it.  As Gorns, we have used it as well.  Most reason being that it can be hard to fill the BPV when it is high, and the BT(Klink is 192) allowed that to be filled.

So, for NEXT cycle, I propose the BT fall under the Command Category, with stipulation that only 1 tug per 3 ship combo be allowed.,

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

The easy solution is to lower the BVP values.

When you have TBVP values of 750 Late you have to take a dread and a BT just to use up the BVP.
If you get a BVP of 300-350 late, you probably not going to take a dread.

I think the reason we are having this discussion in that the TRBG values for this cycle are a little on the high side.

Hey, someone else said it....