Topic: OP+ shiplist 1.21 released.

[Carrie]

As long as you're working on the next version of OP+, along with the F-BCV (which I still want an Excelsior model for), I thought I should ask about the K-B11V. Since it uses a K-BB hull, should it not also be using the K-BB UI? I noticed it was using the K-B10V one in game, and wondered if it shouldn't be using the standard B-10/B-11 one. Just another minor nitpick, admittedly.

I love the F-BBV, btw. It's the ship I've been looking for every time I modified an SCS.  

[Strafer]

The reason it has the B10 hull UI is because it's the only Klingon UI that has all the mountpoints necessary for the weapons.
This was from a past request to have all the proper phaser arcs available.

 

[jdmckinney]

The biggest trouble I have with doing shiplist work is just that pair of problems: not enough hardpoints to use all the right arcs, and not enough arcs (though OP at least has more than EAW). Plus, the LWX is broken, so even more ships can't be done "correctly" per SFB. It's just plain silly how many Kzinti/Mirak ships are using the wrong arcs (LWX broken, no forward equivalent of the LWX/RWX pair), and how many Hydrans are hurt because of the broken LWX. Then there are a number of Klingon arcs still not available ...

Oh well, since perfection is unattainable, at least we have OP to get closer to the model.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
As long as you're working on the next version of OP+, along with the F-BCV (which I still want an Excelsior model for), I thought I should ask about the K-B11V. Since it uses a K-BB hull, should it not also be using the K-BB UI? I noticed it was using the K-B10V one in game, and wondered if it shouldn't be using the standard B-10/B-11 one. Just another minor nitpick, admittedly.

I love the F-BBV, btw. It's the ship I've been looking for every time I modified an SCS.    

I thought about it.. and decided to leave the BCV alone. A preference of a graphic over another wasn't good enough to make me go and make changes in the shiplist, sorry.

The K-BB UI didn't have as many weapons mounts as the K-B10V UI.


-- Luc

[FireSoul]

Quote:
The biggest trouble I have with doing shiplist work is just that pair of problems: not enough hardpoints to use all the right arcs, and not enough arcs (though OP at least has more than EAW). Plus, the LWX is broken, so even more ships can't be done "correctly" per SFB. It's just plain silly how many Kzinti/Mirak ships are using the wrong arcs (LWX broken, no forward equivalent of the LWX/RWX pair), and how many Hydrans are hurt because of the broken LWX. Then there are a number of Klingon arcs still not available ...

Oh well, since perfection is unattainable, at least we have OP to get closer to the model.  

The LWX arc problem has been reported to Taldren.. I'd like to leave it in for now..

.. what other klingon arcs are unavailable? I have requested more arcs myself, and would like to include these arcs if I can.

-- Luc

[CptCastrin]

Quote:
Ok..
.. so.. WHAT ships should be marked as "R" then? .. should a complete revision of the shiplist be done for SPECIAL ships and R ships both?

Just to chime in (because I've not been out here for a while):

1) SPECIAL allows the AI to use the ship in a match but not not be availble to players, i.s. they don't show up in the shipyard.
2) the 'R' tag stands for "RESTRICTED" and prevents a ship from showing up in a match or in the shipyard (thus neither AI or players can use them).

Unfortunetly there is no way to make a ship available to just the players (i.e. only show up in the shipyard but never as AI in a match) that I know of.

Note the above is assuming stock missions, with ED missions I can't be sure of the mission matching but the shipyard "rule" is still valid.      

[jdmckinney]

Well, I'll have to pull out the SSDs and rulebooks. Here are some snippets from the readme for my SFB shiplist (long overdue):

Quote:
Note that Taldren's arcs for many Klingon hulls (including Romulan ships) are significantly different from those in SFB. The RW and LW arcs, for instance, give many of these ships better arcs than they deserve. In some cases, there are ships that do not have as good an arc as they should (FAR and FAL arcs that should fire directly rear from boom phasers, for instance).

(In the SFB Captain's Edition Basic rules, there is more detail about the Klingon hull arcs on p. 33.)

On the B10:

Quote:
Phaser note: the SFC UI does not have enough phaser hardpoints, nor are there the appropriate arcs available even if there were sufficient hardpoints. Therefore, I have followed Taldren's example in assigning the phaser type placement and arcs. Instead of 7 Ph1s, 8 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s, the B10(B) has 9 Ph1s, 6 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s. I've adjusted the phaser arcs on the B11K, but they are still inaccurate due to the restrictions of hardpoints and arc availability.

On the Kzinti/Mirak medium cruisers (also affects a number of other ships of theirs):

Quote:
All medium cruiser variants should have RF/LS and LF/RS arcs on 2 of the Ph1s. Since these arc combinations are not available in SFC, I have made them LS and RS. Though this probably reduces their effectiveness, I have not reduced the BPV of these ships. I chose the LS/RS arcs over Taldren?s FHL/FHR arcs because I feel the loss of rear-firing capability on 2 phasers is worse than the loss of some forward firing coverage overlap.

On the Z-BB hardpoints/arcs:

Quote:
Because there are not enough heavy weapon hardpoints to give the ship 2 FAL and 2 FAR disruptors, I?ve increased the arc on one set of 4 disruptors from FA to FX. This provides extra overlap, but I?ve left the BPV alone since the ship loses some Ph3 and Ph1 arc coverage due to the broken LWX arc and lack of proper side and forward arc combinations. The rear Ph3s and side Ph1s are now LS/RS.

Bases are also affected by insufficient arcs, mainly the LWX problem and the unavailable LS+RF and RS+LF arcs.

There should also be rear versions of the plasma LP and RP swivel arcs.

There are probably more I can't think of at the moment.

[FireSoul]

I decided to test what I have done so far..
.. and it looks promising.

Set-up: Late Era. "ISC War of Pacification" compiled for SFC:OP.
   

[Rod O'neal]

[quote


I know, but experience tells me I won't see a soul play SFC:OP if this is done for EAW..
I have to prioritize, and be unfair..  



I'm glad you took the time to explain. That makes sense.    

[jdmckinney]

Oh, I meant to mention that there are a LOT of ships affected by missing arcs or insufficient hardpoints. Some of the ones I name above are just particularly notable. There are quite a few small Klingon ships that could use the FAL and FAR arcs that would shoot directly rear.

Plus, I haven't even looked into the plasma races yet, so I'm not sure how bad their arcs and hardpoints are.

[FireSoul]

Ok. Thanks for the info. I'll be sure to mention all the arcs.

[Pestalence]

just 2 questions...

Why is it that everyone keeps quoting Captains Edition SFB rules and specs when Taldren has stated repeatedly that the SFC series is based on the Doomsday ruleset and specs?

are these two one in the same or different moduals with different rule sets....

and if the rulesets and specs are different, why then not follow the one that the Game designer intended... the Doomsday ruleset?

just currious... thanks

 

[FireSoul]

IMHO, they're one and the same.
-- Luc

[Carrie]

As someone who owns the Captain's edition ruleset, I can vouch:

That IS the doomsday ruleset. It says so right in the basic manual for the Captain's Edition.

Too bad there aren't many SFB players around Sioux Falls, SD. At least I can play SFC online  

Come to think of it, I'm probably better at SFC anyways. It automates a lot of things, so I don't have to do a ton of math over it like I do in SFB. I know of people who outright ignore the EW rules, considering them still too complicated. In SFC, it's easy. And makes me wonder about the comment elsethread claiming it was something archaic from a board game, and 'too complicated'. It's super-simplified from the board game.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Well, I'll have to pull out the SSDs and rulebooks. Here are some snippets from the readme for my SFB shiplist (long overdue):

Quote:
Note that Taldren's arcs for many Klingon hulls (including Romulan ships) are significantly different from those in SFB. The RW and LW arcs, for instance, give many of these ships better arcs than they deserve. In some cases, there are ships that do not have as good an arc as they should (FAR and FAL arcs that should fire directly rear from boom phasers, for instance).

(In the SFB Captain's Edition Basic rules, there is more detail about the Klingon hull arcs on p. 33.)

The FAL arc with ability to fire down the rear is called FLLX. FAR equivalent: FRRX. (in SFC at least)
As for the Klingon Wing phaser arcs, although the arcs are indeed different, I think they're acceptable.

Quote:

On the B10:

Quote:
Phaser note: the SFC UI does not have enough phaser hardpoints, nor are there the appropriate arcs available even if there were sufficient hardpoints. Therefore, I have followed Taldren's example in assigning the phaser type placement and arcs. Instead of 7 Ph1s, 8 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s, the B10(B) has 9 Ph1s, 6 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s. I've adjusted the phaser arcs on the B11K, but they are still inaccurate due to the restrictions of hardpoints and arc availability.

Ok. Noted. The B10 is inacurate. Any other ships known?

Quote:

On the Kzinti/Mirak medium cruisers (also affects a number of other ships of theirs):

Quote:
All medium cruiser variants should have RF/LS and LF/RS arcs on 2 of the Ph1s. Since these arc combinations are not available in SFC, I have made them LS and RS. Though this probably reduces their effectiveness, I have not reduced the BPV of these ships. I chose the LS/RS arcs over Taldren?s FHL/FHR arcs because I feel the loss of rear-firing capability on 2 phasers is worse than the loss of some forward firing coverage overlap.

I'll pass that along to Taldren..  LSRF / RSLF sound good to you?

Quote:

On the Z-BB hardpoints/arcs:

Quote:
Because there are not enough heavy weapon hardpoints to give the ship 2 FAL and 2 FAR disruptors, I?ve increased the arc on one set of 4 disruptors from FA to FX. This provides extra overlap, but I?ve left the BPV alone since the ship loses some Ph3 and Ph1 arc coverage due to the broken LWX arc and lack of proper side and forward arc combinations. The rear Ph3s and side Ph1s are now LS/RS.

ok. *shrug* .. another ship to fix I guess? Any incorrect ships you know about, pass it along.

Quote:

Bases are also affected by insufficient arcs, mainly the LWX problem and the unavailable LS+RF and RS+LF arcs.
There should also be rear versions of the plasma LP and RP swivel arcs.
There are probably more I can't think of at the moment.  

That's ok.

-- Luc  

[FireSoul]

Here are images I posted for Taldren to use as part of my request:

 
 

1- LR .. Both L and R at once. This is used in some FireSupport ships with 'broadside' arcs.
2- RLP: The rear-arc relative of LP. LP is not quite FAL.. .. so RLP is not quite RAL.
3: RRP: rear relative of RP.
4- LSRF: LS + RF .. missing arc popular on Kzinti ships.
5- RSLF: RS + LF .. other side.

[jdmckinney]

I can't list all the ships I've found errors in (if you can call them errors -- depends on your point of view). Some are significant, like the Z-DNH, which has 4 Ph3s where it should have 4 Ph1s. Others are minor, like ships with the incorrect number of shuttles.

The FAL+rear and FAR+rear don't exist that I've seen. FRRX and FLLX are FRR and FLL with rear, not FAR and FAL. Also, since some of those small Klingon ships don't have enough hardpoints, even if the arcs existed, they wouldn't be able to use both.

At one point, I started listing every error I found, but it was too much work to ever finish. Instead, the best I can do is run Mags' comparator to see what changes I made. The trouble is, it only shows fixes that could be done, not fixes that weren't possible given the limitations of the arcs and hardpoints.

Anyway, even modest additions (fixed LWX and added LS+RF/RS+LF arcs, for instance) would be a great help.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
I can't list all the ships I've found errors in (if you can call them errors -- depends on your point of view). Some are significant, like the Z-DNH, which has 4 Ph3s where it should have 4 Ph1s. Others are minor, like ships with the incorrect number of shuttles.

One could say the Z's.. the Miraks... are sufficiently different from SFB's Kzinti so that SFC doesn't get sued. I'd like to support them if that's the case.
However, I can tell you that strafer fixed the Z-DNH for the phasers.

Quote:

The FAL+rear and FAR+rear don't exist that I've seen. FRRX and FLLX are FRR and FLL with rear, not FAR and FAL. Also, since some of those small Klingon ships don't have enough hardpoints, even if the arcs existed, they wouldn't be able to use both.

At one point, I started listing every error I found, but it was too much work to ever finish. Instead, the best I can do is run Mags' comparator to see what changes I made. The trouble is, it only shows fixes that could be done, not fixes that weren't possible given the limitations of the arcs and hardpoints.

Anyway, even modest additions (fixed LWX and added LS+RF/RS+LF arcs, for instance) would be a great help.  

Oh. I see. Ok. I dunno if they'll do something about that arc, but I might draw them a little diagram for it too.
-- Luc

[Tumulorum Fossor]

Just want to say, "Hat's off" to FireSoul. This is a GREAT project.  I think it's great how SFC has basically split into two groups: the Star Trek fans who are gamers (the SFC3 crowd), and the SFB crowd who are PC gamers (the SFC OP and (now less so) SFC EAW crowds).

I think FireSoul's work is a GREAT reason for the SFBers to, once and for all, embrace OP over EAW for future developments.

I'm glad you're asking the fine programmers at Taldren for some assistance with getting the proper firing arcs going.  What do you think the chances are, candidly speaking, for us getting those arcs?  I'm not holding my breath, but, hey, they're a responsive bunch of nice guys, so it could happen...

As an aside, thank, FireSoul for getting me up to speed and back into the active SFC community.  I've been off the radar for awhile and am trying to get back on course.  And I wouldn't be if it weren't for the work of KhoroMag, NW, and FireSoul.  Good stuff, guys.  Real good.

Let's get those firing arcs, dammit!


-TF

[FireSoul]

We just had a night of playtesting and mere playing with the latest version of my shiplist.. test version of course. There are still the B10 and the Z-BB fixes to do, as well as ideas as to how to insert maybe another couple of hundred ships to the shiplist.

.. but.. so far... (how best to explain) ..
.. the shiplist is definitely more optimized with the YLA dates properly set. We had to lower the difficulty from 1.75 to 1.6 in the coopace. The game got HARD to play.. challenging might be a better description. We lost a few times. It was all good when we won.


When this shiplist is ready, it will definitely boost interests in D2 play. .. We could actually say that "EAW D2" is also a bit broken because the shiplist is just wrong.

-- Luc
(teasing :-)