Topic: Fed BCE Excelsior, CAI Improved Cruiser and the NCM Miranda shiplist changes for SG3. Flame Away...

[Dizzy]

I have never seen anyone play these 3x ships in a campaign... Er maybe once... and they sold it soon after

Yet these 2x ships are unique and interesting enough to be played, but just don't have what it takes to be worth it to fly.

So in order to have these unique and interesting ships end up in the hands of players, I have taken the liberty of changing them for this campaign.

 BCE Excelsior:

 

The move cost has been changed from 1.25 to 1.24. This helps solve the fractions problem with the 1.25 ratio.

The Ph1 arcs have been changed as follows: FAR and FAL to FHR and FHL.  

The Ph3 arc has changed from RA to ALL.

All Photon hardpoints have been split from 2 in 3 locations to 1 in 6 locations.

 CAI Improved Heavy Cruiser:

 

Changed the Ph3 arcs from RA to ALL.

All Photon hardpoints split.

 NCM Miranda:

 

Moved 2x Ph1 hardpoints to central location, retained same fire arc.

Added 2x Ph3's RS and LS.

ALL Photon hardpoints have been split and changed from FA and RA to FRRX and FLLX. Combined arcs of fire are 45` less than that of the combined arcs of the OP version of this ship. However, it is the only way the ship can use all torpedoes firing forward and aft in EAW.
 

 NOTE  In addition, being advanced in design and lacking both AMD and Drones, I have increased the size of their shuttlebay doors (Zoom in on the models) and they now have a launch rate of 2.

I hope these changes are acceptable and reasonable.. I think they are just enough to have players deem them worthy enough to fly. I really want to see them played.

If you disagree, by all means flame away... I want to hear it.

EDIT The Miranda NCM already had a launch rate of 2 in the stock shiplist




   

[luckyFed]

Do consider that 6 separate hard points for photons (and even 4 for that matter) create more headaches than they solve. Sure plasma is used best when in split hard points. Photons aren't plasma.

By the way, if you want to control the no. of photons individually, you can do with 3 hard points for a ship with 4 photons. 1 hardpoint with 2 photons on it, and 2 with 1 each. This will allow for all possible photon combinations more efficiently.

On a side note, it might be just me, but the real reason I don't fly the BCE (although I concur with dizzy in thinking it an "interesting" ship) is its lousy, non-typical phaser arcs. It can't shoot behind it worth crap. It has the least rear firing phaser capacity than any other fed ship in its range.

[FPF_TraceyG]

The BCE lacks drones and decent drone defence as well, I think you'll find that's a big negative as well.

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
The BCE lacks drones and decent drone defence as well, I think you'll find that's a big negative as well.  

Same goes for the other two as well I would think.

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:

Quote:
The BCE lacks drones and decent drone defence as well, I think you'll find that's a big negative as well.  

Same goes for the other two as well I would think.  

Yes, absolutely, especially the Miranda.

When comaparing the BCE to say the BCG or BCV, is probably what I should have added.

[Corbomite]

Quote:
The BCE lacks drones and decent drone defence as well, I think you'll find that's a big negative as well.  

That's what happens when you put movie ships into a SFB based game.

[Dizzy]

So you guys are telling me that despite these small tweaks to them all, they still suck?

[Mog]

Looks that way Dizzy.

Is a similar reasoh why few Klingon carriers are flown except for the C7V and B10V - the others have no drones fitted. As the drone is the supreme ai killer on D2, if a ship doesn't carry them, it rarely gets played. There's a reason why Lyran players are rare too - no easy kills from drones or phG armed fighters.

Nice try though Dizzy

[Cocomoe]

  Tis true, you see very, very few quick missions from non-drone races.  Give all the races drones, might get even the Lyran's played.  

[KBF-Dogmatix]

I guess I don't see the need to or fascination with seeing these three ships played.  There are plenty of other ships to choose from and all races have ships no one plays (for the various, differing reasons).  It seems like these three always seem to get the press, though.

Certainly drones and drone defense can be deemed as root causes of their lack of D2 viability.  If you are Fed player and have other choices available to you, you will, of course, choose them because you have more tactical flexibility.  

As was mentioned, the drawback (in some Klingon players' eyes) to our carriers is that aside from the C7V and B10V (which we gladly fly), our carriers lack drone racks.  Personally, I feel the problem with them is two-fold--- lack of drone racks and less than desirable (compared to other fighter races) fighters.  We've gotten by with steering clear of our carriers until we can get a C7V, but this problem is probably the main reason you don't know any great Klingon carrier jocks.  

One is always going to gravitate to the ship that gives you the most options.


The BCE, CAI and Miranda, in terms of the dyna, are understandably less desirable.  What wrong with that?  


I guess it's your shiplist and campaign, Dizzy.  If you want to soup 'em up, have at it...heheh.

[Mike H]

Quote:
So you guys are telling me that despite these small tweaks to them all, they still suck?  

Having learned to play as Fed, I'll throw in my 2-cents-worth.  I personally do not feel they are bad ships, especially the BCE.  However, using the BCE as an example, it certainly has specific situations where it will do well.

Yes, the BCE is not ideal in a drone rich environment, although that can be improved with either more P3s, or improved arcs as you have proposed , Dizzy.  Nevertheless, the ship does have some good qualities.  The improved shielding is a plus against direct-fire enemies.  The higher reactor output does the job in dealing with higher 1.25 move ratio.  This means that although it takes more energy to move fast, you can do it.  The flip side of that 1.25 move ratio is that you don't have to sacrifice as much speed to get energy to other systems as compared to a ship with a 1.00 move ratio.

While I am never thrilled to face a drone hurler in a BCE, only the fast drones are what really scare me; the other stuff can be avoided with ample speed.  Same thoughts with plasma:  speed and phaser, phaser, phaser.  The seeker weapons folks hate it, but it's what wins battles.     Just be very patient in your BCE against fast droners.

I say try the tweaks and see if it makes the ships more competitive against Mirak and Klink droners.  Just don't expect people who have been playing a long time to instantly love ships they have grown to dislike.  

MH

   

[Mike H]

Quote:
I have never seen anyone play these 3x ships in a campaign... Er maybe once... and they sold it soon after

Yet these 2x ships are unique and interesting enough to be played, but just don't have what it takes to be worth it to fly.

So in order to have these unique and interesting ships end up in the hands of players, I have taken the liberty of changing them for this campaign.

 

The Ph3 arc has changed from RA to ALL.

All Photon hardpoints split.

 NCM Miranda:
Added 2x Ph3's RS and LS.
 

Well the adjustment to the P3 arc is a start, but I don't know if overall  missile defense will approach that of other ships in its class that mount AMDs.  If you want to keep the ships "movie-esque" (meaning no AMD), maybe another P3 or even two, and increase the BPV as needed?

I've never thought the photon hardpoint splitting was really that big a deal.  I keep weapons at priority level 3, and simply adjust speed or ECM as needed to get the number of tubes charging that I want.  I guess there is some kind of damage absorption benefit to having the hardpoints split, however.  Maybe I am missing something on this subject.

 

[Green]

Quote:
The BCE lacks drones and decent drone defence as well, I think you'll find that's a big negative as well.  

The improvement to 360 degree coverage (especially ph3) makes a difference.  The typical droner tac of get 'em to chase you and then chuck a couple is removed.  Now the Ph3s can defend the ship and not require wasting the Ph1 on a drone instead of using it on the droner.  

Dizyy, what improvements are you looking at for the Z-BCH or Z-CL?

 

[Dizzy]

Quote:
 BCE Excelsior:

 

The move cost has been changed from 1.25 to 1.24. This helps solve the fractions problem with the 1.25 ratio.

The Ph1 arcs have been changed as follows: FAR and FAL to FHR and FHL.  

The Ph3 arc has changed from RA to ALL.

All Photon hardpoints have been split from 2 in 3 locations to 1 in 6 locations.

 CAI Improved Heavy Cruiser:

 

Changed the Ph3 arcs from RA to ALL.

All Photon hardpoints split.

 NCM Miranda:

 

Moved 2x Ph1 hardpoints to central location, retained same fire arc.

Added 2x Ph3's RS and LS.

ALL Photon hardpoints have been split and changed from FA and RA to FRRX and FLLX. Combined arcs of fire are 45` less than that of the combined arcs of the OP version of this ship. However, it is the only way the ship can use all torpedoes firing forward and aft in EAW.
 

 

Edit: The BCE, CAI and NCM all have had a tractor added going from 3 to 4.

Thats's the fianal and last of the changes for these 3x ships. Oh, I am adding these three ships to all races and each player is required to purchase them and fly them for a period of not less than one game year...

[Dizzy]

Quote:

Quote:
The BCE lacks drones and decent drone defence as well, I think you'll find that's a big negative as well.  

The improvement to 360 degree coverage (especially ph3) makes a difference.  The typical droner tac of get 'em to chase you and then chuck a couple is removed.  Now the Ph3s can defend the ship and not require wasting the Ph1 on a drone instead of using it on the droner.  

Dizyy, what improvements are you looking at for the Z-BCH or Z-CL?

 

The Z-BCH has a turn radius change from E to D.

Aside from these 3x ships, the SG3 shiplist includes only minor tweaks and changes, adding and deleting several ships. it's general purpose isn't to try and make ships 'better', rather, it is to 'clean' up and streamline the minor problems the old lists have. So to answer your question... Yes, the Z-BCH was a ship that had an incorrect turning arc so it was 'tweaked'. The Z-CL doesn't require a change iirc... There is nothing wrong with it.
 

[jimmi7769]

[quoteThe Z-CL doesn't require a change iirc... There is nothing wrong with it.
 




Other than being a total piece of crap......but then that's how it was designed eh??

[Remiak]

Hi,
One of the possible reason why these 3 ships are not played is because of viable alternatives...when one can play a better ship for about the same cost in the same time period, one usually does and each of these class/pp range contains alternative choices for the players.
In conclusion, there is no real problem here if payers do not play these 3 ships as they are not "stuck" playing them.

Just one opinion.
Thanks    

[Nomad42]

BCE is a poor choice against droning races.
Although against plasma races it can be very effective.
You can overload the front photons, turn off the rear and do speed 31 with some power left over for eccm.  

[SSCF_Paladin]

My two cents worth...

Speaking as a player who has flown (or at least attempted to) the BCE and Miranda class several times, I am glad to see some effort has been made to make them viable ships.

For myself and many others, it really comes down to the drone defence.  In D2 it makes the difference whether an enemy player outright destroys you in some cases or not - though I really have a soft spot for both types.  The CAI, I have always wondered just exactly what front it was intended for, and have little experience flying.  In any case, I always pick photons over drones, and being able to fire any of them outside of the normal front arc makes me drool (ahh dreams of BCT+... it might not have been improved to the same extend as some of the BCs at the time, but I loved it anyway)

As soon as I get the chance, I intend on trying at least those two, if not all three to see exactly how they are different.  In any case, thank you for the effort.

[KBF-Dogmatix]

Quote:
Hi,
One of the possible reason why these 3 ships are not played is because of viable alternatives...when one can play a better ship for about the same cost in the same time period, one usually does and each of these class/pp range contains alternative choices for the players.
In conclusion, there is no real problem here if payers do not play these 3 ships as they are not "stuck" playing them.

Just one opinion.
Thanks      

That's what I said...heheh.  It's Dizzy's list, though..if he wants to tweak those three ships, have at it.  I doubt many people will fly them anyway, though.  I think this is more for Dizzy than anyone else.