Topic: Casual Tenders cannot rearm and repair PF's...

[Dizzy]

Well they can, cuz the game engine allows it, but you arnt supposed to. Had a match against a KCNF where he flew an escort PF, which he repaired and rearmed... Kinda sucked seeing endless stream of D plasma... but hey, GSA aint the D2... but house rules in my games on GSA are that no casual tenders are gonna be able to relaunch PF's. Why? Well, I'm sure someone else can explain it better, but casual tenders have mech links, not repair bays for one. I think there's more to it, can someone else elaborate?

[Tulwar]

In SFB, casual tenders were ships that had mech links to tow PF's deep into interstellar space.  The little ships just can't travel at warp speed for more than a couple days, or so without frying their engines.  For the PF's to be rearmed and repired, the PF's would have to be towed to maintenance facilities.  PF tenders are ships specifically designs to tow and maintain PF's.  A tender usually has enough mech links to tow an entire flotilla of six, plus repair and maintenance facilities.  Often, tenders do not have the facilities on all links, so the PF's have to jockey around the tender and take turns in the repair bays.  In any case, SFC really speeds up the repair and rearming of all fighters and PF's.  As far as casual tenders, SFC treats them like full service tenders.

[Lear]

Beg to differ, to place a Pf on any ship." make 1 tractor beam a mech link
And remove 1 shuttle." the mech link just alines the PF with the shuttle bay.
Tight fit, yes, but once in the bay regular maintence occures. just like fighters.

[Tulwar]

Beg to differ, to place a Pf on any ship." make 1 tractor beam a mech link
And remove 1 shuttle." the mech link just alines the PF with the shuttle bay.
Tight fit, yes, but once in the bay regular maintence occures. just like fighters.

What game are you talking about?

[marstone]

Beg to differ, to place a Pf on any ship." make 1 tractor beam a mech link
And remove 1 shuttle." the mech link just alines the PF with the shuttle bay.
Tight fit, yes, but once in the bay regular maintence occures. just like fighters.

Not in SFB.  A mech link is a mechanical dock that is put on a tractor beam so it can hold a Pf (are a special one for the Fed heavy fighters).  On a full PF carrier, there are repair boxes that are assigned to repair the PF's and not ships, so they can fix them and flush the warp engines so they don't go pop.

A casual PF carrier has the links but not the repair boxes so can not fix a PF when it docks, but they can help limitedly in rearming them.

But as when you dock a PF it is rearmed and repaired, the simple fix is don't dock them unless you are not going to relaunch them if you are a casual PF carrier.

[Lear]

there are also Casual carriers also are they going to be under these rules also,
I guess defind Casual.
 

[marstone]

Casual is used in two ways here.  Casual carrier was first, it meant a none warship carrier.  They are mainly freighters that have been converted to carry fighters, and no, they are fully capable carriers.  They can rearm and repair fighters as normal.

Casual PF tenders I am not sure if it is even the official SFB term (didn't get into PFs that much).  That refers to a ship that has the cheap PF links to just carry a PF.  IF you could see the SSD's from SFB you would see the different mech links and which ships had repair boxes to fix a PF. (easy thing is if you can carry 6 or in SFC terms 4 pf's you are a full tender and can repair PF's, if you carry less you cannot)  Normally a casual PF tender has two PF's.

I personally do not have a problem with a casual repairing PF's in SFC as there is nothing in the game to change that, to be true to SFB, you cannot.  Hopefully in SFC4 this will be done and we will not need house rules for it.

[FPF-DieHard]

Somebody actually took a casual Tender in  GSA game?   We have the repair prohibition in D2 and I think it makes sense there, but on GSA just let it go.

A Casual Tender has mechlink, literally a trailer-hitch that drags the PF to battle and then lets it go.  These could be added to any ship.

[Dizzy]

 We have the repair prohibition in D2 and I think it makes sense there, but on GSA just let it go.

A Casual Tender has mechlink, literally a trailer-hitch that drags the PF to battle and then lets it go.  These could be added to any ship.

Dont want to let it go cuz this is an opportunity to let GSA players in on D2 play. They learn something about the ships they are flying and about the uniqueness of tenders. Its a win win.

[marstone]

 We have the repair prohibition in D2 and I think it makes sense there, but on GSA just let it go.

A Casual Tender has mechlink, literally a trailer-hitch that drags the PF to battle and then lets it go.  These could be added to any ship.

Dont want to let it go cuz this is an opportunity to let GSA players in on D2 play. They learn something about the ships they are flying and about the uniqueness of tenders. Its a win win.

Well, they learn the SFB side of it, when they made SFC they figured it was balanced anough to let all carriers and Pf carriers to repair their attrition units.

Bringing it up is good as hopefully when all SFC players move over to SFC4 I hope it will run in the SFB mode, so they are ready for it.  Also they would be ready not to get yelled at if they move over to the D2.

So it is good, but don't be to harpy at them, they have been playing it that way for along time.

[FPF-DieHard]

We have the repair prohibition in D2 and I think it makes sense there, but on GSA just let it go.

A Casual Tender has mechlink, literally a trailer-hitch that drags the PF to battle and then lets it go.  These could be added to any ship.

Dont want to let it go cuz this is an opportunity to let GSA players in on D2 play. They learn something about the ships they are flying and about the uniqueness of tenders. Its a win win.

Carriers/PFs are flown so rarely on GSA that I don't think it's worth the effort to differentiate.  Besides, for what you pay for a PF on GSA it is over-priced consifering the AI control

[BlazinBud]

I was the one flying the KCNF.  And have been repairing and relaunching PF's for 10 years.  Doubt it will ever change on GSA.  I can guarantee that other GSA'rs will do the same.  But was fun match all the less.  I'm not really into all the SFB mumbo jumbo.  Never played board game much.  D&D fan more.

[marstone]

I was the one flying the KCNF.  And have been repairing and relaunching PF's for 10 years.  Doubt it will ever change on GSA.  I can guarantee that other GSA'rs will do the same.  But was fun match all the less.  I'm not really into all the SFB mumbo jumbo.  Never played board game much.  D&D fan more.

The board game has a good depth to the rules and is good for players of SFC to check out at least for how the game really runs under the hood. 

[FPF-DieHard]

I was the one flying the KCNF.  And have been repairing and relaunching PF's for 10 years.  Doubt it will ever change on GSA.  I can guarantee that other GSA'rs will do the same.  But was fun match all the less.  I'm not really into all the SFB mumbo jumbo.  Never played board game much.  D&D fan more.

The board game has a good depth to the rules and is good for players of SFC to check out at least for how the game really runs under the hood. 

Pretty much, most of the stuff that makes you got WTF makes sense if you understand the backstory that's provided in SFB/F&E.

 I'm the server admin who came up with the rule regarding PFs not being able to be repaired for casual tenders but I don't think this is right for GSA.

D&D rules 

[Dizzy]

but I don't think this is right for GSA.

D&D rules 

Glad you arnt the word on GSA! 

[Walleye]

The SFC shiplist/ruleset was not made exactly like the SFB shiplist/ruleset on purpose because what works on paper does not work in a realtime computer game the same way. This was debated on the old Taldren forums over and over and over.

The 2552 shiplist was balanced by Taldren using data acumulated from thousands and thousands of SL matches on mplayer and I always favored Taldrens version over the SFB purists version, especially in matchplay. It is far more balanced than any "SFB exact" shiplist ever could be without any extra rules.

[Tulwar]

The SFC shiplist/ruleset was not made exactly like the SFB shiplist/ruleset on purpose because what works on paper does not work in a realtime computer game the same way. This was debated on the old Taldren forums over and over and over.

The 2552 shiplist was balanced by Taldren using data acumulated from thousands and thousands of SL matches on mplayer and I always favored Taldrens version over the SFB purists version, especially in matchplay. It is far more balanced than any "SFB exact" shiplist ever could be without any extra rules.

I started to refute the above, but I have to agree with Walleye.  Obviously, a real time computer game cannot work exactly like a board game.  Some of Taldren's compromises are better than others.  I have no problem with things like casual tenders repairing PF's.  The Lyran PFE was a nice attempt to try and match the Gorn and Romulan PF's.  My problems stem from things deep in the code, like the segregation between fighter and PF empires, the lack of a propper fighter or PF plasma-D, and Taldren's fighterlist in general.

[marstone]

The SFC shiplist/ruleset was not made exactly like the SFB shiplist/ruleset on purpose because what works on paper does not work in a realtime computer game the same way. This was debated on the old Taldren forums over and over and over.

The 2552 shiplist was balanced by Taldren using data acumulated from thousands and thousands of SL matches on mplayer and I always favored Taldrens version over the SFB purists version, especially in matchplay. It is far more balanced than any "SFB exact" shiplist ever could be without any extra rules.

I started to refute the above, but I have to agree with Walleye.  Obviously, a real time computer game cannot work exactly like a board game.  Some of Taldren's compromises are better than others.  I have no problem with things like casual tenders repairing PF's.  The Lyran PFE was a nice attempt to try and match the Gorn and Romulan PF's.  My problems stem from things deep in the code, like the segregation between fighter and PF empires, the lack of a propper fighter or PF plasma-D, and Taldren's fighterlist in general.

I will agree the main problems I have are hardcoded in the game and will take some work to remove. 

I can see the debate over balance and BPV of ships starting up as new features are implemented and it shifts the balance of the game around alittle.  Will be interesting

[FPF-DieHard]

The SFC shiplist/ruleset was not made exactly like the SFB shiplist/ruleset on purpose because what works on paper does not work in a realtime computer game the same way. This was debated on the old Taldren forums over and over and over.

The 2552 shiplist was balanced by Taldren using data acumulated from thousands and thousands of SL matches on mplayer and I always favored Taldrens version over the SFB purists version, especially in matchplay. It is far more balanced than any "SFB exact" shiplist ever could be without any extra rules.

I started to refute the above, but I have to agree with Walleye.  Obviously, a real time computer game cannot work exactly like a board game.  Some of Taldren's compromises are better than others.  I have no problem with things like casual tenders repairing PF's.  The Lyran PFE was a nice attempt to try and match the Gorn and Romulan PF's.  My problems stem from things deep in the code, like the segregation between fighter and PF empires, the lack of a propper fighter or PF plasma-D, and Taldren's fighterlist in general.

PFs and fighters aren't worth their BPV because they are AI controlled and the AI sucks.   This is why I don't have an issue with Casual tenders being able to repair PFs on GSA as you are paying the full BPV for a small ship flown by a moron.

D2 is a differnt ball of wax, this is simulating a war not a battle.

[Dizzy]

hehe...