Topic: Ship list error

[deadmansix]

 in the OP+4.1 ship list I found a error the Hydran Lord Marshall carries 6 fighters not 4.

 just thought you should know

[Age]

Post it in FS thread about 4.1 in the Gen. SFC forum.

[FireSoul]

 in the OP+4.1 ship list I found a error the Hydran Lord Marshall carries 6 fighters not 4.

 just thought you should know

I'm not home, so I can't currently check. Just be aware that it might be accurate with 4 fighters, a corrective reduction from stock SFC:OP.
Notes to self: how many fighters does the LM carry in SFB? If 2/3 the amount, recalculate BPV. If ok, leave as is.

[762_XC]

6 is the correct number, both for stock SFC and SFB. Hydran command ships generally did not have the 2/3 rule applied, so the OV, CHA, LM and LC all have 6.

[FireSoul]

6 is the correct number, both for stock SFC and SFB. Hydran command ships generally did not have the 2/3 rule applied, so the OV, CHA, LM and LC all have 6.

I see.
I don't know where the exemption to 2/3 comes from, and I don't agree with it.  This exception to command ships is new to me: I've never heard of it nor deduced it.

I'll consider the restoration of the LM, but note that it's a very subjective decision.

[762_XC]

It comes from Taldren, the same place as the stupid 2/3 rule came from in the first place. If you are going to subjectively throw out part of it then just throw out the whole thing and go back to SFB fighter numbers.

Their logic, as far as I can figure it, was mostly to leave hybrid carriers alone and apply the 2/3 rule to true carriers. There are a few exceptions with some hybrids with larger fighter complements, like the Paladin (8 instead of 12).

The Ranger is the real oddball...8 instead of 9. How they came up with that no one will ever know.

[FireSoul]

I have never heard or read anything from Taldren which specified that. Do you have notes or info on this?
Also, do you agree that only Command/Leader Hydran ships, up to a certain size, should have this feature? I don't mind giving back to the Hydran leader ships, but take note that it may be a while before I release any updates to OP+ 4.1.


(warning! achtung! attention!  The following is merely a lame joke!)
Heh. What if I made a command HDW (have flag bridge) with casual carrier loadouts (6 fighters).

[762_XC]

No, I don't. I just probably spent more thought and energy on this than anyone else (remember the DIP project)? I also recognize the patterns for what they are.

DG for example has 3 in both. LN has 4 in both. Why reduce from 3 to 2 or 4 to 3? I'm sure that's what someone said. Neither are command ships btw (on further thought I don't think command has anything to do with it actually).

My opinion is either leave it alone or change it wholesale, i.e. Taldren numbers or SFB numbers. Don't invent something new at this point.

[FireSoul]

No, I don't. I just probably spent more thought and energy on this than anyone else (remember the DIP project)? I also recognize the patterns for what they are.

DG for example has 3 in both. LN has 4 in both. Why reduce from 3 to 2 or 4 to 3? I'm sure that's what someone said. Neither are command ships btw (on further thought I don't think command has anything to do with it actually).

My opinion is either leave it alone or change it wholesale, i.e. Taldren numbers or SFB numbers. Don't invent something new at this point.

The problem with leaving it alone is that it makes additions follow a different trend to what Taldren has set up... and there's a lot of additions.

I want to know what they had in mind and emulate it even if it means changing their own stuff.

[marstone]

My guess is the 2/3 rule came about because they speeded up the fighters and double internal made them tougher.  Also, the way they loaded fighters in the game limited it to four per bay. Thus 16 was the limit on fighters per ship.

[762_XC]

Then I would say subject true carriers and hybrids with 12+ to the 2/3 rule, and leave all others with SFB numbers. That's simple and 99% consistent with what Taldren did.

And no, the 2/3 was part of what Paramount wanted to make the game less "fightery".  I do recall Taldren (I think it was Jinxx) saying that in the past.

[marstone]

I could see that also, as fighters were not shown much in the shows.

But game mechanics did work out that 2/3 fighters and pfs were a hard limit.

[Bonk]

My initial thought on the matter is to leave FireSoul to use his standard formulae for automated shiplist qa and such, and to be as consistent as possible in replication of what Taldren would have done. A list of such exceptions could be difficult to maintain given the size of the full OP+ shiplist.

That said, I think it is worthy of note that the H-LM carries six fighters in the EAW 2.0.0.2 stock shiplist.

Then I would say subject true carriers and hybrids with 12+ to the 2/3 rule, and leave all others with SFB numbers. That's simple and 99% consistent with what Taldren did.

I think this is a good compromise and probably would not be hard to automate. However it is FireSoul's OP+, let him make the call. Currently Frey does not want us to modify the stock EAW shiplist in any significant way in SFC:CE, and with good reasons. When the time comes that he feels secure in those sort of changes in the base game, then we can discuss (In great detail I'm sure ) exactly what we want to do with the stock SFC:CE shiplist.

We almost always radically modify standard shiplists for major campaigns anyway, (e.g. SGO/DH shiplist) and server admins and RMs can go over whatever standard shiplist is selected for a particular server in detail as usual.

Of course, as I suspect you all know, if I had my way, we'd have the option of full SFB CnC fleets and loadouts. (approximated in the SFB-OP shiplist). Of course now that we have the source to a version of the SFC client, the infrastructure for such optional modifications can finally be put in place.

Hows that for noncommital? I do think it is a good answer to the question at hand however.