Topic: Poll: Would you fly a line ship if exempted from disengagement rule/hex ban?

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

well, that brings up a point doesn't it?

According to what I know about the general war, the whole reason behind the cheesy goodness of late era is b/c all the line ships had been DESTROYED in the previous years of combat.

All the cheese and chase ships were the replacements for those line ships.

Maybe, we should just cut out the line ships in late era?

[Dfly]

Or how about only line ships for the first week,  only a few specials(say 4 ships per side heavy or fleeting) for the second week, and Cheese for the 3rd week then? 

[Lepton]

I'd rather not see the benefit of flying a line ship disappear in the late era as I think that this is the era that servers are in the longest.  Is that true?

While the SFB source material and history is valuable in many cases, much of what we do has little in common with SFB and F&E.

[Dfly]

I'd rather not see the benefit of flying a line ship disappear in the late era as I think that this is the era that servers are in the longest.  Is that true?

While the SFB source material and history is valuable in many cases, much of what we do has little in common with SFB and F&E.

From what I remember, the late era is usuallly about the last 4 or 5 days of a 3 week server, so it is not the longest.

[FPF-DieHard]

I'd rather not see the benefit of flying a line ship disappear in the late era as I think that this is the era that servers are in the longest.  Is that true?

While the SFB source material and history is valuable in many cases, much of what we do has little in common with SFB and F&E.

From what I remember, the late era is usuallly about the last 4 or 5 days of a 3 week server, so it is not the longest.

I think that is the best way to go,  AOTK2 was a 30 Day server with maybe 4 days in "late."  I think the best bet is to just have 90% of a server take place before 2280.

[FPF-DieHard]

well, that brings up a point doesn't it?

According to what I know about the general war, the whole reason behind the cheesy goodness of late era is b/c all the line ships had been DESTROYED in the previous years of combat.

All the cheese and chase ships were the replacements for those line ships.

Maybe, we should just cut out the line ships in late era?

By 2275, all "Heavy Cruisers" would have been converted to CCs, Carriers or detroyed.   This is why the NCAs come out as conversioa of War cruisers in 2275

[Hexx]

well, that brings up a point doesn't it?

According to what I know about the general war, the whole reason behind the cheesy goodness of late era is b/c all the line ships had been DESTROYED in the previous years of combat.

All the cheese and chase ships were the replacements for those line ships.

Maybe, we should just cut out the line ships in late era?

By 2275, all "Heavy Cruisers" would have been converted to CCs, Carriers or detroyed.   This is why the NCAs come out as conversioa of War cruisers in 2275

Well no, NCA's came out because ADB (or whoever) wanted to sell more stuff.

[FPF-DieHard]

well, that brings up a point doesn't it?

According to what I know about the general war, the whole reason behind the cheesy goodness of late era is b/c all the line ships had been DESTROYED in the previous years of combat.

All the cheese and chase ships were the replacements for those line ships.

Maybe, we should just cut out the line ships in late era?

By 2275, all "Heavy Cruisers" would have been converted to CCs, Carriers or detroyed.   This is why the NCAs come out as conversioa of War cruisers in 2275

Well no, NCA's came out because ADB (or whoever) wanted to sell more stuff.

Not correct, NCAs were part of the Battelships book and that would have sold anyway.  A Black-letter rule in R5 was that there would never be any NCA Varients EVER . . .

NCA varients were invented to line SCV's pockets with R10 

So long longe before "Strike Cruiser" ships are mad for all races?

[IAF Lyrkiller]

Not all ships are created equal. (CA/CC).

There is going to be an imbalance is a given.

I just dont think it will work.

Not voting.

[Julin Eurthyr]

I don't buy the whole 179 thing. The whole reason behind it is that the Novahawk is considered to be better than most CCH's. I think if we have a balanced CCH-class plasma boat on the other side we can avoid the whole issue. Give the Gorn CCH 2 more points of power and the problem will correct itself.

Gorns are sometimes Alliance and sometimes Coalition, but they are always on the opposite side of the Roms. Make the CCH comparable to the NHK and we have no BPV issues for command cruisers.

The whole "179 BPV" thing was chosen by Lepton, IMO, because SVC himself declared all ships at 180 BPV or above are classified, at a minimum, as a "heavy battlecruiser".

Consider the SFB text for your aforemetioned ships:

R4.72 "This ship is considered a heavy battlecruiser" - Novahawk
R4.73 "This ship can be considered a BCH" - Royalhawk

Both lines are reprinted, in all their glory, in the SFC 1 manual.

Miraculously, without checking the shiplist / MSC, I'll bet you both ships are 180+ BPV.  I think Taldren cut them some slack because:

The Royalhawk, with it's 1 R vs 2 S configuration, is potentially "undergunned" or at least "underhardpointed" for the 180+ BPV level.  SVC recognizes this potential issue by the differentiation in the text (wishy-washy "can be BCH" vs strict "is a heavy battlecruiser").  The Novahawk was mis-classed as a standard Heavy Cruiser because of either the plasma tracking issue, the fact that the officially "conjectural and unbuilt R-KCR" is "built" in SFC as the Rommie's "official" BCH, or it was just missed as an oversight on the original shiplist work by Taldren.
To make matters worse, we've carried this illusion of the NHK/RHK as a "line command cruiser" on throughout our SFC play for over 5 years.

As an alternate fix, we could take advantage of the wishy-washiness on the RHK and specifically declare it as a "CCH", and noting it as an official exemption to the 179 BPV limit in the rule.  Therefore, the Rommie's now have an "official" CCH to counter the Gorn CCH, and all is right in the plasma world.  We'd avoid repeating the whole flamewar over the NHK being an "overpowered" CCH that way too...

Because, as an ISC pilot, if you gave our "historical" enemy, the Gorn (ISC's often aligned against the Gorn, I think I've winged with Mirak more often than the Gorn) 2 power for their CCH, I'd request it get an appropriate BPV hike.  That BPV hike would, most likely, put the G-CCH over 180 BPV.
Using the existance of the R-NHK, R-RHK & G-CCH as prime examples of "BCH" level ships (180+ BPV) being treated as CCHs, the ISC deserve to get a CCH-class vessel.  Due to the awful thin ISC shiplist, the CCY/CCZ are the only currently existing combination of ships that can be reclassified into this position, as they are CCs over 180 BPV made during the CCH era.  As this reclassification would leave the ISC without a "heavy battlecruiser" roled ship, and that could cause no end of consternation with the serverkit / missions, I believe the entirety of the ISC would survive with the CCZ retaining it's artificial "BCH" treatment as long as the CCY gets it's YLA adjusted to "end of CCH production", which is, IIRC, 999 along with the CCH classification.  Perhaps, if it's absolutely necessary, a new I-CC (CCC / CCB) could be generated to fill the vacant "ISC BCH" slot from 2275 - the end of the Y-refit period(2280-ish).  This BCH-level CCY could carry the SFB-official 6 cargo boxes (representing the space the I-torps would be installed into) instead of the Pl-I, granting it 12 extra (doubled) internal hits over the "stock" CCY.

[Lepton]

It was DH's suggestion.  I just said OK, sure.

[FPF-DieHard]

I don't buy the whole 179 thing. The whole reason behind it is that the Novahawk is considered to be better than most CCH's. I think if we have a balanced CCH-class plasma boat on the other side we can avoid the whole issue. Give the Gorn CCH 2 more points of power and the problem will correct itself.

Gorns are sometimes Alliance and sometimes Coalition, but they are always on the opposite side of the Roms. Make the CCH comparable to the NHK and we have no BPV issues for command cruisers.

The whole "179 BPV" thing was chosen by Lepton, IMO, because SVC himself declared all ships at 180 BPV or above are classified, at a minimum, as a "heavy battlecruiser".

Consider the SFB text for your aforemetioned ships:

R4.72 "This ship is considered a heavy battlecruiser" - Novahawk
R4.73 "This ship can be considered a BCH" - Royalhawk

Both lines are reprinted, in all their glory, in the SFC 1 manual.

Miraculously, without checking the shiplist / MSC, I'll bet you both ships are 180+ BPV.  I think Taldren cut them some slack because:

The Royalhawk, with it's 1 R vs 2 S configuration, is potentially "undergunned" or at least "underhardpointed" for the 180+ BPV level.  SVC recognizes this potential issue by the differentiation in the text (wishy-washy "can be BCH" vs strict "is a heavy battlecruiser").  The Novahawk was mis-classed as a standard Heavy Cruiser because of either the plasma tracking issue, the fact that the officially "conjectural and unbuilt R-KCR" is "built" in SFC as the Rommie's "official" BCH, or it was just missed as an oversight on the original shiplist work by Taldren.
To make matters worse, we've carried this illusion of the NHK/RHK as a "line command cruiser" on throughout our SFC play for over 5 years.

As an alternate fix, we could take advantage of the wishy-washiness on the RHK and specifically declare it as a "CCH", and noting it as an official exemption to the 179 BPV limit in the rule.  Therefore, the Rommie's now have an "official" CCH to counter the Gorn CCH, and all is right in the plasma world.  We'd avoid repeating the whole flamewar over the NHK being an "overpowered" CCH that way too...

Because, as an ISC pilot, if you gave our "historical" enemy, the Gorn (ISC's often aligned against the Gorn, I think I've winged with Mirak more often than the Gorn) 2 power for their CCH, I'd request it get an appropriate BPV hike.  That BPV hike would, most likely, put the G-CCH over 180 BPV.
Using the existance of the R-NHK, R-RHK & G-CCH as prime examples of "BCH" level ships (180+ BPV) being treated as CCHs, the ISC deserve to get a CCH-class vessel.  Due to the awful thin ISC shiplist, the CCY/CCZ are the only currently existing combination of ships that can be reclassified into this position, as they are CCs over 180 BPV made during the CCH era.  As this reclassification would leave the ISC without a "heavy battlecruiser" roled ship, and that could cause no end of consternation with the serverkit / missions, I believe the entirety of the ISC would survive with the CCZ retaining it's artificial "BCH" treatment as long as the CCY gets it's YLA adjusted to "end of CCH production", which is, IIRC, 999 along with the CCH classification.  Perhaps, if it's absolutely necessary, a new I-CC (CCC / CCB) could be generated to fill the vacant "ISC BCH" slot from 2275 - the end of the Y-refit period(2280-ish).  This BCH-level CCY could carry the SFB-official 6 cargo boxes (representing the space the I-torps would be installed into) instead of the Pl-I, granting it 12 extra (doubled) internal hits over the "stock" CCY.

Or we could simply leave the ISC out of the game and be better for it   

[Julin Eurthyr]

Or we could simply leave the ISC out of the game and be better for it   

DH, let me refine how I want to say it, and you'll wind up finding a nice dissertation on ISC balance in your SGO dev thread...

[FPF-DieHard]

Or we could simply leave the ISC out of the game and be better for it   

DH, let me refine how I want to say it, and you'll wind up finding a nice dissertation on ISC balance in your SGO dev thread...

Oh, this should be entertaining.   Just could the verbiage small so it's easier to find the bullsh*t

All joking aside, the ISC's CCH would be the I-CAZ though it comes out a few years later than the cookie-cutter races.   The NHK comes out earlier.

[FPF-Paladin]

I voted yes.  I prefer line ships anyway though.

I know there's going to be debates and disagreements over where to draw the 'line' (oh that's just bad...) but I like the reasoning behind it.

[Hexx]

Or we could simply leave the ISC out of the game and be better for it   

DH, let me refine how I want to say it, and you'll wind up finding a nice dissertation on ISC balance in your SGO dev thread...

Excellent.
t00l needs something new to whine about.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Or we could simply leave the ISC out of the game and be better for it   

DH, let me refine how I want to say it, and you'll wind up finding a nice dissertation on ISC balance in your SGO dev thread...

Wound up throwing it, as a separate topic, in D2 Server Admin Corner, so that all seeking answers on the ISC may look there...

[Lepton]

My reading of this poll is that there is broad support for exempting line ships from the disengagement rule.  Presumably those willing to fly CAs as line ships would not object to CCs as line ships.  I hope to see this implemented on a future server.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

My reading of this poll is that there is broad support for exempting line ships from the disengagement rule.  Presumably those willing to fly CAs as line ships would not object to CCs as line ships.  I hope to see this implemented on a future server.

Not quite.  I think excluding line ships from the disengagement rule is a good idea.  However, I do object to CCs as line ships.  They are not line ships, and you may as well do away with the disengagement rule completely if you include them as such.

-S'Cipio

[Lepton]

The poll basically says if CAs were the top ship, people could accept that.  If the CC people were willing to go with a CC, I'd think they'd be willing to go with a CA. I also think the converse is true.  Those who voted the CA option would be willing to have CCs included.  The dividing line is a non-issue in my opinion as, if you include in the definition of a line ship everything that is identified in the OP+ list as a line ship, you are looking at alot of ships being line ships anyway.  The concept doesn't suddenly crumble over the addition or deletion of a ship class from the definition.

Also you forget the quintessential rule that makes this system work.  Line ships subject to disengagement rule when faced by all line ships.  There are plenty of ships that can force line ships out of a hex.  They are, in fact, LINE SHIPS, in this system by definition.  So, no, one isn't throwing out the disengagement rule if you include CCs as their counter is, tada!!!!, another CC.  It's that simple.