Topic: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device  (Read 4478 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Scipio_66

  • Guest
Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« on: April 15, 2003, 11:47:15 pm »
The cloaking device doesn't "work" in SFC, mostly because Taldren did not incorporate several key features from SFB:

The Problems
===================================
1) Incoming weapons fire is not reduced by the Damage Reduction Table when cloaked (makes cloak useless for phaser defense)
2) Seeking weapons do not make an immediate check for loss of lock after fade is complete (makes cloak useless for seeking weapons defense)
3) Tractor/Anti-tractor cannot be charged while you are cloaked. (making it simplicity to flash and grab a cloaked ship; exacerbates point 2)
4) Cloaked ships can be 'flashed' with phaser fire (for crying out loud!) and then hit with H&R boarding parties.  (This makes Romulan ships with R mounts very vulnerable while cloaked.)

(Upfront:  I don't include lack of a hidden cloak because hidden cloak isn't part of the standard rules of SFB, isn't part of the Balance of Terror source material, makes for a boring game, and simply isn't needed.  Besides, I just don't like it; not even in SFB where I was mostly Romulan.  Those are my opinions only .  I understand some people like hidden cloak, and I include my opinion on the matter here only to explain why I don't consider it in this post.)


How to fix the Problems?
===================================
There are three things I can think of to do in order to move the cloak closer to SFB capability.

1) Give Romulan ships innate ECM
--------------------------------------------------------------
This would help alleviate problem 1.  The effect of the damage reduction chart can be duplicated by using ECM.  However, this takes power that the claoked ship does not have and can be countered with ECCM.  (The hunting ship will have no problem putting up ECCM, since he can slow and stalk the cloaked ship without having to pay for a cloak himself.)  Giving the cloakable ship free ECM can be done with a simple shiplist edit and gives the cloaked ship an edge in the ECM battle.

The complication is that this gives the ship an ECM edge even when not cloaked!  This may not be as serious a problem as it first appears.  Romulan ships do not have plasma-bolt torpedos (Even though Khoro-Mag could have done it in 15 minutes; thanks, Taldren!) and thus have virtually no chance of hitting a fast moving target with their heavy weapons.  This forces them into a phaser-boat contest.  The Gorn can try to compete here because of their strong phaser suite, but Romulans have a very weak phaser suite.  (Roms are supposed to have a weak phaser suite because they can use cloak for seeking weapon defense; but see problem 2 above.)  Giving an ECM bonus may in fact move the dualing ability of Rom ships closer to where it was always supposed to be.

2)Reduce Romulan Cloak cost by (2?) points
-------------------------------------------------------------
This would help alleviate problem 2.  Reducing the cost of cloak would give you more speed during fade.  Perhaps this extra speed would force seeking weapons to finally getting around to checking for lockon (instead of just slamming into your cloaked hull.)

This would also help alleviate problem 1.  Once you were fully cloaked and had shed your unwanted seekers, you could slow and feed your extra power into ECM.  You'd have the choice of copying an SFB power curve and having an additional ECM edge to simulate the Damage Reduction Table, or going faster than SFB would have allowed and being easier to hit than you would have been in SFB.

The complication is listed above:  it would be possible for cloaked ships to travel faster than they were designed for (if their captains were willing to suffer the SFC cloak handicaps.)

3)Make WE's unable to be boarded.
-------------------------------------------------------------
This seems a bit cheesey, but give it some thought.  In SFB you could assign boardng parties to specific systems, and any WE captain would have assigned one to his R-torp.  Performing a H&R raid on a gaurded system was tantamount to suicide.  In SFC, you cannot assign guards.  See problem 4 above.  It is far too easy to kill a WE's only gun, even when he is still cloaked!

The complication is that no one will ever be able to capture a WE.  However, it is easy to imagine that such a small and Romulan ship would perform a quick self-destruct before any boarding parties could secure a capture.  WE captains probably sleep on the self-destruct button.

The KE could also be considered, but since it has three torps I'm not sure such a step is warranted.



MY SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS
===========================================================
I suggest a combination of the steps listed above:

1) Give 2 points of free ECM to all Rom ships
2) Reduce the cloak cost of all Rom ships by 2 points.  (Combined with solution 1, this give the Rom a four point gain in ECM; enough to counter the three points of ECCM innate in Gorn Plasma Torps and hopefully help make the "chuck and duck" possible.)
3) Make WE's non-boardable.  (Change their special role marker to NT in the shiplist.)  This helps protect their single gun from phaser-flashes.
4)Curse (loudly) because anti-tractor is a part  of tractors rather than an innate function of the  hull, as is the case in SFB.    There is jack-all else we can do to fix problem 3.


What are your thoughts?  More?  Less?  Any agreement or flames?  

LATE EDITAlmost forgot to mention, I wouldn't do any of this for Kestrel hulls.  They were never designed to use the cloak anyway.

-S'Cipio
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 pm by Scipio_66 »

SPQR Renegade001

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2003, 12:36:37 am »
I like the changes you've outlined for the 1st gen ships, (less the SN-B that Taldren gave us), and more than agree that the Kestrals should not see these changes. But beyond that, I think that the vast majority of players would rather not see the Hawks running around with 4 more power. As is, I've beat human BCF's with the SP-L. If it had 4 more power, who knows what it'd be killing. The SuperHawk, NovaHawk and KillerHawk would be totaly OTT, and we'd be back to getting flamed for exporting Romulan cheese again, ( just like the PFs & THVs).

I like your plans for the old birds but, IMO, if you want to fix the cloak on the Kestrals and the Hawks, rip it off, and drop the cloak penalty. After all, that's how we've flown them this far. Lets see how competitive the K7R, SUA & the CON are at 134, 172 & 208.  

Dizzy

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2003, 01:23:24 am »
SG3 shiplist agrees with the shipwrights shiplist in that all cloakable vessels have a cloak cost approx. 40% of their total power. Thats about a 10-15% savings from where it used to be. Unintended consequence will be a ship that can go faster while cloaked. I think the KHK is gonna be the deadliest here... It can go about 25 while cloaked! Scary. Course... its the only ship with such Advanced X-Tech era power curve, which is BS imo, but oh well...

NT I presume means no-transprt for special rules? I'll grant that to the WE, but 1st, what would happen if we added 'security' to the WE? Security in ship edit is typically used for klingon ships and helps repel Hit and Run and boarding actions.

Does security work in SFC2? I'd rather choose that than NT.

I'll not give romulan ships ecm bonuses, however.

FPF_TraceyG

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2003, 01:26:56 am »
Security Stations in SFC don't actually do anything and can be considered equivalent to hull hits. They're included in shipedit because they are included in the game engine. This is another one of those things that were probably on Taldren's 'to do' list that never got finished.

FPF_TraceyG

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2003, 01:32:22 am »
Well, Scippy mounts a good argument that the SFC Romulan cloak is not as effective as the SFB cloak. The SFB Cloak cost was of course determined by playtesting in SFB, which as Scipio argues for is not applicable in SFC. So, for argument's sake, let's call it a Partial Cloak. It's reasonable then that a Partial Cloak would not cost as much in power, nor should it add as much onto the BPV of a Romulan ship either. The question then, is what percentage of the original power and BPV cost should we set our Partial Cloak to? 50%? 75%? 40%?

Dizzy

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2003, 01:32:36 am »
Ok, but what doe the special role of NT do? I see DEF's have no crew and no Boarding parties. I assume this is a workable No-Transport to or from feature?

FPF_TraceyG

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2003, 01:49:54 am »
If you look at the DOE shiplist, you'll find all the Tholian ships were designated NT, No Transport, so offhand, I'd say it works to prevent boarding party action.

Dizzy

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2003, 02:06:49 am »
I guess Ill just ahve to test it...

Edit: Tested and it appears that you cannot beam TO a ship with an NT special role, but you may beam FROM a ship that has NT for boarding and H&R.

I think I'll setup all Tholian ships with NT

I'll also setup the WE and WER with NT.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2003, 02:51:40 am by Dizzy »

Mog

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2003, 03:33:47 am »
I know this has gone off topic but the NT thing is also useful to know for Andros. In my previous Andros, I'd just raised the amount of boarding parties onboard, but now they can have normal amounts. Thanks for bringing this to our attention

As for cloak, only time I've used it really is against bases/planets. I like to remain uncloaked so that I can utilise the meagre phaser array anyway

Dizzy

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2003, 03:48:11 am »
The cloak cost has dropped to 40% of total power for SG3. You may want to consider using cloak now

Cleaven

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2003, 03:50:27 am »
It would be nice for the Romulans to have a cloak that works but since that's not possible then some sort of compromise should be looked for. If one of the reasons for pursuing this topic is to make the WE hull types more playable, then some sort of extra defensive mechanisms (like ECM or NT) must be added. I always thought that the Romulans should get value for BPV whatever the function of the cloak, so even if no extras are given then the BPV's should be fixed a bit.
Alternately keep the 15% bad hair cut and cloak tax, but make the cloak worth it by dropping the power requirement (at least) and adding some ECM would not hurt either. Either way though we will not see the same sort of cloaking battles that occured in SFB (optional invisible cloaking included) so we should be aware that a change in the perception of what is a cloaking battle is required. Whether it be fast running cloakers or slow WB's with max ECM and bonus shields, if the cloak is to remain as a usable special for the Romulans there will have to be significant alterations for some or all of the ships of the line compared to the stock shiplist. So what do you want to see?  Playable WE's? Running cloaking KRC's?

My vote is for a ECM boost for the early era hulls, some ECM for the 3rd gen hulls, and an overall reduction in cloak power cost, with Kestrels receiving x% reduction, 3rd gen hulls 2x reduction and early warbird hulls a 3x reduction. Then a realistic assessment of the cloak tax should be made for adjusting BPV's.

Not too keen on the NT option because I'm not sure what could become of it. There may be a loophole.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 pm by Cleaven »

Dizzy

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2003, 04:05:14 am »
I agree with the reduced cloak to an extent of which will be 40% of total power.

I'll also add 1 ecm to the WE and WER hulls only.

The NT prevents boarding actions and H&R's against the WE and WER. So you cant capture or beam to damage weapon hardpoints.

Will this make it playable? Prolly not... but its a good step to at least making it a bit of a threat. Otherwise... its just a Plasma R Defense platform...

Also, what do you all think about having Kestrel designs having 50% cloak cost compared to Romulan designs at 40% of total power?

FPF_TraceyG

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2003, 04:10:54 am »
Here's a thought. Rather than simply reducing the cloaking cost by a flat rate across the board, we could take the view that when a ship is cloaked, it should agin the benfit of 6 pts of ECM (regardless of hull size). So, how feasible is it then to simply take off 6 points from the cost of cloaking for every Romulan ship, which in theory could be used for ECM when cloaked and maintain the same power curve. Clearly, smaller ships will benefit more from this than larger ships, which is probably a good thing, as it might avoid problems with larger ships like the KCR running at speed 24 whilst cloaked as mentioned above. This assumes that there aren't any Romulan ship that use less than 7 points of power to cloak. I'm not sure if this is the case. Any ship that small, however, is not likely to pose much of a threat anyway... lol!!, but perhaps if such cases exist, a minmum power requirement of (obviously) at least 1, perhaps 2 or 3 might work. Just a thought.

Cleaven

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2003, 05:36:09 am »
I don't know that having a cloaked KCR moving at speed 24 is a problem if all it does is prevent the KCR from firing, and it still gets phasered to death, but that could be a valid outcome for a successful SFC cloak. Personally with all the disadvantages of running a high speed battle for a plasma user, I think it would be okay to have a cloak working more in the Romulans favour than less. What I mean here is that it will be impossibel to obtain perfect balance, so aim off a little bit in the favour of the cloak such that the cloakee gets the benefit of the doubt.


<Lyrans of course don't give a rat's about this discussion>

- "Number One, I don't care if the Romulan vessel has a new UberCloak Mk III (PatPending) with added Photon repellant. Just fire ESG 0 and drop two SS's and beam the survivors to the galley"

<The above statement is purely fictional because Lyrans are reliable members of the coalition and would not eat their allies.        

Scipio_66

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2003, 07:12:15 am »
Summarizing replies:

1) None of the Romulan ships under my proposal would get four points of extra power, or any points of extra power.  Cloak cost would be reduced by 2 points, but engine power would remain the same.
2) NT in the special column prevents the enemy from boarding your ship
3) Security stations in SFB were used to keep your own crew under control and gave no special benefits against enemy boarding action.  They did count as control spaces,  which could be given up instead of taking boarding party casualties.
4) Adjusting BPV is the historical 'balancing' approach taken by Taldren and could be used in Gamespy, but is of no help in the dynaverse.  (No one will care if their 8000 PP ship costs 50 to 200 extra PP points at purchase.)  Actual ship capability has to be changed if we want to improve the coak (or anything else) in Dynaverse play
6) I still wouldn't give jack to the kestrel hulls. They aren't supposed to cloak well.  
7) (Off topic)  I still don't understand why the BCF is the most popular Fed BCH.  It is weaker than its kindred.  There's no way a pair of F-torps is ever worth a pair of photons.  

Good replies so far.  I look forward to seeing what effects the reduced cloak cost will have on SG3.  You Rommies just be sure to point that cloak at someone other than my Gorn.  Go shoot the bad old putty-tats instead.

-S'Cipio  

Mog

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2003, 07:55:19 am »
Scippy, the BCF is popular for a couple of reasons (my own opinion). Fed players generally fear plasma, and therefore believe it is feared when fitted to a Fed ship. Second is that plasma doesn't need ECCM and can't be disposed of as easily as drones. So it's mostly plasma envy (imo)

FPF_TraceyG

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2003, 08:09:29 am »
Although I've never flown a BCF (I prefer the BCG or BCV), the BCF also has the advantage that you can charge the plasma-F's and have them sitting there at no power cost and turn off your photons and phaser boat if necessary. Against another plasma ship, this can be handy if you need to keep your speed up and maybe even plasma ballet a little. The plasma-F's don't really have the punch for it though, and there is still the 3 turn wait to re-arm of course.

Dizzy

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2003, 09:08:11 am »
I agree scipio... The Kestrel hulls will stay at 55% of total power for cloak while all Rom designs will have 40% total power cloak cost.

Kroma_BaSyl

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2003, 09:33:24 am »
Quote:

Although I've never flown a BCF (I prefer the BCG or BCV), the BCF also has the advantage that you can charge the plasma-F's and have them sitting there at no power cost and turn off your photons and phaser boat if necessary. Against another plasma ship, this can be handy if you need to keep your speed up and maybe even plasma ballet a little. The plasma-F's don't really have the punch for it though, and there is still the 3 turn wait to re-arm of course.  





Ah ha, I knew it! You have Plasma envy.

FPF_TraceyG

  • Guest
Re: Salvaging the Romulan Cloaking Device
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2003, 09:44:45 am »
DOH!!!