Topic: Deepstrikes

[Hexx]

Having read (again) SFB's "History of the Splendid Cats" dealing with  fast cruisers a thought occured to me
(actually I've had it before.. but anyway)

Would it unbalance/contribute negatively to the game if
A) In order to Deepstrile you had to be using a Fast cruiser
This (I would think) would make Starbases and such somewhat more difficult to kill

B) In order to fly a Fast Cruiser you have to be deepstriking?

I know people have considered the CF's to be cheesy and somewaht unbalancing, is it possible to
regulate them to the roles (I think) they were designed for?

[Dizzy]

Nice idea, but I wont be adopting it for SG5. Mb another campaign.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

is it possible to
regulate them to the roles (I think) they were designed for?

They were designed for SFB not SFC so I don't think regulating them will work.  Otherwise you have to regulate escorts only being flown with Carriers, carriers having to be flown with escorts, bombardment and commando ships only used on assaults, command cruisers flown only at the head of squadrons, etc.

Think historically as well about ships and other weapons that were adapted to be used for purposes other than those origionally intended.  I don't think you punish people for using the available weapons to do whatever they are more useful at.  If it becomes a game balance issue you restrict the ships or the numbers allowed but don't mess with a player's options on how to use them.  I personally don't mind capital ships being flown together ( I actually think it should be allowed) as long as no disengagement penalty is applied to any foe they defeat if combined.

[Corbomite]

Not to mention build restrictions on the actual number of ship types produced and it would mean no conjecturals.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Not to mention build restrictions on the actual number of ship types produced and it would mean no conjecturals.

In a historical setting that is true, however, notions that the Federation are the richest empire, Romulans are a poor empire, etc are thrown out the door for most servers, so historical build restrictions based on an SFB universe are largely irrelevant on most servers.

[Corbomite]

Not to mention build restrictions on the actual number of ship types produced and it would mean no conjecturals.

In a historical setting that is true, however, notions that the Federation are the richest empire, Romulans are a poor empire, etc are thrown out the door for most servers, so historical build restrictions based on an SFB universe are largely irrelevant on most servers.

So are most things SFB. What's yer point? 

[FPF-DieHard]

Not to mention build restrictions on the actual number of ship types produced and it would mean no conjecturals.

In a historical setting that is true, however, notions that the Federation are the richest empire, Romulans are a poor empire, etc are thrown out the door for most servers, so historical build restrictions based on an SFB universe are largely irrelevant on most servers.

ALL races were limited 1 1 CF built per year and they all cost about as much as a BCH.   Theirs engine required special manitnance that was alos very expensive which cannot be replicated in SFC.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Not to mention build restrictions on the actual number of ship types produced and it would mean no conjecturals.

In a historical setting that is true, however, notions that the Federation are the richest empire, Romulans are a poor empire, etc are thrown out the door for most servers, so historical build restrictions based on an SFB universe are largely irrelevant on most servers.

So are most things SFB. What's yer point? 

That was my point 

[FPF-Wanderer]

is it possible to
regulate them to the roles (I think) they were designed for?

They were designed for SFB not SFC so I don't think regulating them will work.  Otherwise you have to regulate escorts only being flown with Carriers, carriers having to be flown with escorts, bombardment and commando ships only used on assaults, command cruisers flown only at the head of squadrons, etc.

sigh...<Wanderer wistfully wishes it were so...> 

Actually, I like the idea of limiting the numbers of "fast" ships, for most of the reasons given here.

How about we still let other units deepstrike, but only so far into enemy territory; say, 5 hexes.  Only fast ships could deepstrike farther than that.  I don't think that's unreasonable, and it gives a campaign a little more 'historical' feel.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Sorry Wandy have to disagree,

Historical feel is fine for roleplay but is damn boring as a server rules set IMHO

[FPF-DieHard]

I don't think Fast cruisers need any more added bonuses.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

They were designed for SFB not SFC so I don't think regulating them will work.  Otherwise you have to regulate escorts only being flown with Carriers, carriers having to be flown with escorts, bombardment and commando ships only used on assaults, command cruisers flown only at the head of squadrons, etc.

That depends upon what his goal is.

Throwing in one history-based flavor point doens't mean you have to use the others if htey don't fit your campaing.  He wouldn't have to do any of that if he didn't want to, since they don't address what he seems to be after.  It sounds like he wants to add something to make behind-the-lines base killing a little harder.   The real question is, would this do that?

If this rule adjusts play in the manner he wants for his campaign, then cool!  (And if it adds a little SFB flavor to the mix, that's just a bonus.)

As to whether or not it would work..........  I'm not sure it would.  Early in the game the fast curisers are my favorite Gorn base killers anyway, since they are our only ship with S torps.   Tearing down a full starbase in a BF is a long and tedious job, however, so it might slow us down a bit once the bigger ships come out as other activities might look more rewarding.

-S'Cipio

[Hexx]

Yes- that's something I was working on.
It's (easy enough) to bring down a SB with a droner/ other big HW ship
It would (imo) make it more difficult with a CF - although (again) I hadn't considered the Plasma boys
It would also remove the CF's from the "front line" PVPer's. If the ships are to be used on DS then they
aren't being used in general combat on the front. If you want to fly a CF go base busting, otherwise don't.

To me it doesn't give the CF's another bonus so much as restrict their usage to something they were "designed" to do.
Part of the problem (imo) is the ability in SFC for a a number of ships with firepwer that far exceeds their ship class (the DF's /F5D's/ DWD's etc)
to happily go busting up Starbases behind the lines, if the player gets caught he spends another 1k points to buy another ship and tries again.

Again- people complain that CF's  are too good in PVP and that DS lets bases be destroyed to easily.
To me this seems to be a (somewhat) workable solution to both problems.

[Green]

A) In order to Deepstrile you had to be using a Fast cruiser
This (I would think) would make Starbases and such somewhat more difficult to kill

B) In order to fly a Fast Cruiser you have to be deepstriking?

"A" sounds cool.

"B" doesn't.  Not sure it is  an enforcable rule.  Afterall, the player has to get to the deepstrike hex through some path.  That plus even players who prefer to sepnd max time deepstriking end up working the line or just flipping hexes from time-to-time.

[Braxton_RIP]

To build on what Green was saying about B... you don't just use a ship once, put it in the dock and let it sit until you need the same thing done.  It is an asset, and you reroute it to another location to do another job that is suited to its capabilities.  In the case of a fast crusier, in the historical sense, I would say something like rapid response to border intrusions.

[Corbomite]

To build on what Green was saying about B... you don't just use a ship once, put it in the dock and let it sit until you need the same thing done.  It is an asset, and you reroute it to another location to do another job that is suited to its capabilities.  In the case of a fast crusier, in the historical sense, I would say something like rapid response to border intrusions.

Then give more and varied targets to DS. Allow CF's to flip planet hexes behind the lines w/o a LOS, but not to reinforce them. Once the planet hex is neutral it can be assumed a major force is on it's way to retake it and the DSer must leave the area. VP's could be given for a successful flip and return to friendly space.

[Hexx]

To build on what Green was saying about B... you don't just use a ship once, put it in the dock and let it sit until you need the same thing done.  It is an asset, and you reroute it to another location to do another job that is suited to its capabilities.  In the case of a fast crusier, in the historical sense, I would say something like rapid response to border intrusions.

Then give more and varied targets to DS. Allow CF's to flip planet hexes behind the lines w/o a LOS, but not to reinforce them. Once the planet hex is neutral it can be assumed a major force is on it's way to retake it and the DSer must leave the area. VP's could be given for a successful flip and return to friendly space.

Uhmm... no

More and varried targets is something I'd love to do- (I'd tentatively like to see a map with some kind of base in many hexes, representing supply points/ mines etc)
But planets should never be (imo) conquerable by DS.
I'm thinking anyway of having major Starbases be all but impervious to single ships,
Have SB with 4 "monitor" type ships in it's bays, make the monitors virtually incapable of movement for concentrated PD, and stack 4 wings of foghters or PF's on each of the monitors etc..
The idea (in most servers so far) that you could actually raid (with a single ship) a capital system seems ludicous to me, really anything important would logically simply be able to dump so many small ships at you that you'd neevr get within range of hte planet.

[Corbomite]

Might want to put your reading glasses on there shorty. I never said anything about "conquering". Fliping a planet neutral would amount to disrupting a supply line for a short time. But I do agree ity shouldn't be able to be done to a "core world".

[Hexx]

What I'd actually like to do is have a map where you have bases (of some sort) essentially every 2-3 hexes (or even 4-5- which would probably work better)
that act as a supply infrastructure.
If you want to flip an enemy hex /base/planet/whatever you've got to have chains of these things from a planet (a major planet) of
yours to the target area.
Ideally there would be enough of them that you could easily withstand the loss of a few, but if DS units are left to run free, eventually you'd have to concentrate on securing your areas before you could take enemy territory.
The bases would have to be killable by a CF, but tough enough that the CF couldn't (realistically) knock out more than one or two before needing to resupply.

I have no idea if it's workable (I'm assuming not) but I'd love to see something that added even
alittle more strategic depth to this game other than just flipping hexes.


Although many (if not all) of SFB's/ F&E's economic/ politcal/ and military systems just don't make any logical sense
for anything other than an attempt at game balancing (which is hte reason I assume they made such a mess of them) they do
seem to have the idea that ships need to operate within a relatively close distance of a supply point.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Well you would definately have your work cut out for you having to balance the base busting viability of the fast cruisers of all races is you imposed such a scheme. 

Tell you what, get to work and lets see what you come up with, then I'll ridicule you at that point