Topic: Fighter & PF's

[Hexx]

OK, I *think* I know which way this will go, but figured I'd ask anyway...

Operation Cavalry is supposed to be a "Historical" server, the actual campaign & it's aftermath
depended hugely on the attrition units of both sides.

What I'd like to do is run the server with SFB levels of attritiion units.
Now- it's important to note- ALL carriers and ALL Pf tenders would be available
only in limited numbers and would be one of the ships available in finite numbers.
(So only X number of them can be killed before no more are available on the server)

This would also have the effect that carriers/tenders must be escorted by a well, escort
So if a player in a carrier wants a wing, that wing would have to be flying an escort.

It's also important to note that 6 fighters using drones don't tend to fire alot more drones than 4 fighters.
(I think there must be a coded limit- even the wings of 4 fighters don't fire as many as they could at one time)
What it mainly does is increase the resilience of the fighter group and make carriers more important.
Right mow it's possible (if a bit difficult) for a DNH to smack a CVA around, and really it shouldn't be.

PF groups would be increased by having the Leader carry one scout variant and one vanilla PF.
There is only one ship on the server that would carry Plasma PF's, and I'm not even certain if it
would have been present for the operation (have to take another look at YFA's & Conversion costs to
see if the Gorn would send one)


Also imporatnt to remember that this is only for one server, I'm ceratinly not advocating it for all future servers.

Thoughts? Critcisms? Jealous Tirades against my brilliance?

[FPF-DieHard]

Thoughts? Critcisms? Jealous Tirades against my brilliance?

Public debate is a bad idea 

[Lepton]

I've been reading my SFB rules too long today.  Is the question in reference to the fact that SFB limits are a further restriction of an already restrictive OOB system (if that is indeed true) or are you asking something else?  I'm all for something new.  Whether others will follow suit, I cannot say.

[Riskyllama]

I have a crazy question... during the experiments with frigates posing as PFs inside other frigates as PFs, did anyone consider whether or not one could use a "launcher" pf... where the tender has 2 pfs inside it. These two "launcher pfs" could both launch the 3 combat pfs and then be recalled? Would this allow the pfs to remain out on the map with no threat to the source pf being blown up as is the risk right now?

This plan may just be lunacy caused by massive sleep deprivation, but if it's sheer genius, I'll want a cookie.

[Dizzy]

Yes. but the problem is u cant control the PF's or give them orders. (Edit: also upon recall and relaunch of the extra PF carrier, new PF's could be generated by the player). You get a very small cookie... This cookie is for me: http://www.hendersonville.com/news/cookie.html Cuz you probably didnt notice it was already done... On SGO5, Gorn, Lyran, possibly, and Rom Bats and SB's dropped 2x PF's and 2x 'Hangar Pods' that each had 2x PF's. End result was a Base that dropped 6 PF's. 1 Leader, 2 specials and 3 vanilla. 

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

On SGO5, Gorn, Lyran, possibly, and Rom Bats and SB's dropped 2x PF's and 2x 'Hangar Pods' that each had 2x PF's. End result was a Base that dropped 6 PF's. 1 Leader, 2 specials and 3 vanilla. 

Oh trust me... on that mission with Shin & TT, TT had the bases, I noticed TWELVE PF's.....

Sheesh... thankfully, we were packing a ton of drone throw between DM6 & I....

[FPF-DieHard]

I think we need to go in the direction of fewer attrition units on the board not more.

I LOVE fighters and PFs but unless all involved in the encounter are using fast computers and broadband connections (and Software firewalls turned off  ), lag can get out of cotrol.

[Hexx]

I think we need to go in the direction of fewer attrition units on the board not more.

I LOVE fighters and PFs but unless all involved in the encounter are using fast computers and broadband connections (and Software firewalls turned off  ), lag can get out of cotrol.

Which is of course why carriers and tenders won't be generally available.

That would just be silly.

I know it's a burden to realize that your DNH might not be the most powerfull
unit on the map in a Klink/Fed fight.. but I have confidence you'll get over it.

[FPF-DieHard]

I think we need to go in the direction of fewer attrition units on the board not more.

I LOVE fighters and PFs but unless all involved in the encounter are using fast computers and broadband connections (and Software firewalls turned off  ), lag can get out of cotrol.

Which is of course why carriers and tenders won't be generally available.

That would just be silly.

I know it's a burden to realize that your DNH might not be the most powerfull
unit on the map in a Klink/Fed fight.. but I have confidence you'll get over it.

[762_XC]

Um, Hexx, heavy dreads laugh at attrition units. Especially that Fed one.

[Hexx]

That's because we need more attrition units... many more..

6 Fighters will be much tougher (well 50% tougher) to kill
than 4. They will be able lose two fighters and still hae the mass
drone fire they do now.

In other words..

the DNH is going down..

[FPF-DieHard]

He really has no idea does he t00l?   

[Hexx]

Look- as I recall in a fight some time ago I nearly killed your
DNH with a BCHT, it would be easy with a CVA.

[762_XC]

Why am I reminded of the story when a team of wrestling dwarfs try to take on a lion and get pwned.

[FPF-DieHard]

Look- as I recall in a fight some time ago I nearly killed your
DNH with a BCHT, it would be easy with a CVA.

ALMOST means you came up short.

Um, nevermind . . .

[Hexx]

Fine
We'll see who has the screenshots this time...

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Hexx has a point DH, maybe if he puts enough fighters on the board he can "Lag his way to victory".

More fighters = very bad idea unless ZERO deck crews, when they die they die for good like they should. 

[FPF-DieHard]

More fighters = very bad idea unless ZERO deck crews, when they die they die for good like they should. 

We are discusing this in PMs . . .

[762_XC]

I'll agree to zero deck crews when we have human-controlled fighters.

[Dfly]

On SGO5, Gorn, Lyran, possibly, and Rom Bats and SB's dropped 2x PF's and 2x 'Hangar Pods' that each had 2x PF's. End result was a Base that dropped 6 PF's. 1 Leader, 2 specials and 3 vanilla. 

Oh trust me... on that mission with Shin & TT, TT had the bases, I noticed TWELVE PF's.....

Sheesh... thankfully, we were packing a ton of drone throw between DM6 & I....

I found that out vs Lear in his FH-P when I ran a planet assault with my Gorn CCX.  After taking out 6 PFs and Lear, I had to still take out 6 more PFs, let alone the AI ship, the 2 Bases, and all the other stuff.  Those PFs and Bases made very short work of all my AI.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I'll agree to zero deck crews when we have human-controlled fighters.

Well we already have fighter-controlled players 

<Snicker>

[FPF-Paladin]

I'm all for any idea that cuts back on the "Whoo, fighters are out... don't need CCs' any more do we..." syndrome that usually sweeps over players around mid-late...

I'm not against fighters and pfs exactly, just unhappy that beyond a certain point we're not playing Star Trek, it's the battle of Midway sometimes that's all.

[Dizzy]

It's the battle of the CS+