Topic: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?

[jdmckinney]

Although ...

The question of additional ships does bring up the ADB-approved "Brothers of the Anarchist" feature from the Captain's Logs. Captured ships appear there regularly, and some are interesting. I have a recent issue on captured Orion ships used in imperial navies and police forces.

I could see a whole separate "fun" list for campaign or skirmish use based on captured ships -- a race would have all kinds of ships except their own. It would be kind of a laugh. Of course, that means someone would have to input all those ships, which I don't see anyone volunteering for when there are more pressing things to do.

The essential problem with additional ships is that many of the ones you can add aren't worth a hill of beans. Many of the captured ships, endless tug variants, and stuff like FCRs fit this category. It may be neat to see them in there, but who would use most of them?

[FireSoul]

I would recommend keeping those for custom campaigns.
.. I have a few of the captain's logs with the "Brothers of the Anarchists" here. I like the ideas but ..

1- I don't have them all and I'm poor right now.
2- I *really* don't feel like getting into making these additions at this time.


Note:
.. I think the only ships I accepted for addition from the captain's logs SSDs are the X1 ships I could find. Anything else I left behind. You have to remember that all ships in the Captain's Logs are not final in their testing and design.

-- Luc

[FireSoul]

Anyways.. I don't intend to add any ships at this time..  .. I would like to make that clear. I don't think Module J2 is a good idea either: not all the races have carriers. There would be an unbalance.

SO!.. ;>
.. Can we keep to the items I have listed?


Oh, and correction requests are welcomed.
-- Luc

[KBF-Dogmatix]

If the current convention is 1 deck crew per fighter, I don't see anything wrong with making the proposed corrections.  that seems reasonable to me.

Correcting fighter loadouts to the 2/3 rule is fine, but the casual carriers creat a bit of a problem and I'd be with TarMinytaur  in terms of just leaving their conversions alone.  Perhaps adjust the deck crews where applicable.

I have zero problems with the proposed hardpoint splitting.


As far as the LYAs go...well, this is a matter of taste.  Since I play this game pretty much solely in the D2 arena, I'm going to side with Nomad on making ships' LYAs coincide with the release of a given refit.  Nothing bugs me more that seeing Klingon B-refits clogging up the yards on a given server as late as 2277 or '78 (or even later).  The K-refits come out around 2272 or '73.  There should be no further B-refit production after that date.  As I said..this is a matter of taste and certainly this game is played in other manners than D2.  However, if we're talking shipyard production, I can't see any reason that B refits would continue to be produced even 1 year after the K-refit comes out.  Sure..some may remain in service as 2nd or 3rd echelon forces...but damnit, I don't fly 3rd echelon!  heheh...


Love the shiplist!

[FireSoul]

can you help me find the part that mentions 2272-2273 for the K refit in the SFB material?

..as for the Casual Carriers..... that change *IS* for them. I would not leave them alone. They need fixing. That's the issue, here... a balance overhaul for carriers, casual or not.

-- Luc

EDIT: All master ship charts show Y175..

[TarMinyatur]

http://www.mninter.net/~phdship/klndwc.gif

Holy cow, that sucker's a bit stronger than Taldren's DWC.

+2 Center Warp
+1 Ph1 on each wing
Ph1 -> Ph2 on waist
+1 B-rack
all for 9 less BPV! (163 vs 154)  

[FireSoul]

Because it's not an official ship, I won't change anything else.. unless there's a GOOD reason for it.

-- Luc

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:
can you help me find the part that mentions 2272-2273 for the K refit in the SFB material?

-- Luc

EDIT: All master ship charts show Y175..

R3.72 "K" REFITS: This refit includes the "b" refit (if any) for that ship, and replaces some Ph-II with Ph-I (cost = 1 point for each phaser replaced). This refit began about Y175 and included approximately 5% of the fleet per year. The priority was: D7C, F5L, C8/9, D7, BP, D5, F5, E5, D6, Tug-A, but this was not absolute. A majority of the ships in service as late as Y183 still lacked this refit. D5s were not automatically built as D5Ks, but some were later converted. ISF ships never received this refit. Klingon ships in Romulan hands did not receive the K refit although theor satndard KR version includes a similar conversion. Many variants also received the K refit, except for minesweepers, scouts, drone ships, maulers, exploration ships, cargo transports, commando ships, PF tenders and penal ships. A D7C with a K refit is designated D7L, not D7CK. Similarly, a D5C with a K refit is called a D5L.

Whilst this extract from the SFB rules tend to suggest a more staggered approach to introducing refitted ships, I tend to agree with Dogmatix that in a D2 environment, no one is going to buy an old ship when a new refit is available, and will just wait for one to appear in the yards. The shipyard will only produce so many ships, as per the gf settings for ship production, empire economy points, etc. and extra ships really do just become an annoyance to players if they are never flown. I'm in favour of setting the YLA to coincide with the release of a new refit, but as has been mentioned, its a decision that ultimately will be made by respective server administrators to suit the flavour of their campaign.  

[FireSoul]

Thanks Tracey. That does really help. Y175 it is.

but about the YLA overlap..
.. I want some sort of overlap in this general purpose shiplist for all things. Remember, it's not just the D2 out there. I played for a good solid year without even touching the D2. It was all Local LAN, GSA and the coopace script.
.. it's just that I found 3 years too long a period... so I will bring it down to 2 years through some perl scripting.

-- Luc


 EDIT: .. yes.. I did say I wanted your opinions.. ..and I would like to thank you all for it.
.. but .. going to 0 is unacceptable.. and 1 year is too short an overlap.

[FireSoul]

I just spent 45 minutes arguying with KOTH players on the D2 about the Z-CCX..
.. so I will rehash the argument, for all to see.. and why I changed the Z-CCX long ago.

The Z-CCX was a ship with a few phGs, a fre Mirv racks and other drone racks. It appeared in 2300 like the other xships in OP.

The Z-CCX I entered is the one from SFB.. It appears in 2293 in my shiplist and is part of the X1 era ships. For 247 BPV, it has 10 phXs, 4 dizzies, 6 drone racks. It has 42 warp engines. The G racks causes it to also have 4 ADD6s.



Why did I castrate it?
Well..

.. I also entered the Z-BCX, Z-CMX, Z-FDX, Z-FKX. ..
.. none of those have Mirv racks or phGs either. The Z-CCX was out of place.. it was a ship with X2 tech and ..


.. *ding!* idea....

Quote:

<FireSoul> Ok. I've come to a decision.
<FireSoul> I will reenter the original Z-CCX.
<FireSoul> It will be the Z-CCX2 and will appear in 2300 while my Z-CCX will be
           in 2393 like right now.
07:48PM <Corbomite> are you going to keep yours or nerf it FS?
07:48PM <Corbomite> ok that explains it
<FireSoul> Everybody happy?
07:49PM <Corbomite> it will be an X-1.5 ship

There.

[jdmckinney]

You've got to be kidding me.

People are complaining about the flavor of their X-cheese in a CUSTOM shiplist? FS, I think you're right to leave it in if you're leaving in all other Taldren X-designs, but I like the X1 ships much better as a group -- more selection and more standardization in conversion rules.

[Holocat]

Hm.  After several bouts of trying to get a mirak tug with SFC freight pods to look, er, not so ugly, I

a.) decided to just skip it and do the lyran tug, which is coming along nicely, and

b.) play OP.  alot.

Playing the Fed HDW's was a strange and new experience;  The F-HDW & F-HDWC's have a very different design philosphy from the early Fed light cruisers, such as the F-DD.

Enough of the star/naval-gazing and on to the odditiy however.  I found that under scrutiny, the F-HDWE (Heavy war destroyer escort) has exactly the same armament as the F-HDW2, four LESS power, but costs 162 as opposed to the 145 of the F-HDW2.  I also noticed that it's the only fed escort that lacks the controversial and cheezy Ph-Gs.  Is something the matter here?  Mabey a oversight, mabey there's something about the F-HDWE that I haven't seen.

I'm also wondering exactly what Firesoul plans to do with the casual carriers; 2/3 of 4 is 2.66 or 2, which would make casual carriers no different from normal war destroyers, or at least from the fed point of view.  So, what to be done with them then? 3 fighters is nice, but when scrutinized, it's not a whole lot better than the 2 a normal HDW will carry.  Four is enough to make a difference from 2, but I get the feeling that some consider this too many.  3 and consolation prizes, such as an extra 2 shuttles?  I dunno.

Anyway, more information on what is planned to be done with HDWC's would be nice,

Holocat.
 

[FireSoul]

Quote:
You've got to be kidding me.

People are complaining about the flavor of their X-cheese in a CUSTOM shiplist? FS, I think you're right to leave it in if you're leaving in all other Taldren X-designs, but I like the X1 ships much better as a group -- more selection and more standardization in conversion rules.  

It would be okay D2-wise too.. it would mean that if the campaign lasts ALLllll the way up to 2300, then the Z-CCX2 becomes available.. only to be followed by the other "X2" ships in the shiplist.



The BIG difference would be in standard multiplayer games, I think. Advanced era is advanced era no matter how early or late it is within it... That ship should then still be selectable.
....  .. a good compromise.


-- Luc

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Hm.  After several bouts of trying to get a mirak tug with SFC freight pods to look, er, not so ugly, I

a.) decided to just skip it and do the lyran tug, which is coming along nicely, and

b.) play OP.  alot.

Playing the Fed HDW's was a strange and new experience;  The F-HDW & F-HDWC's have a very different design philosphy from the early Fed light cruisers, such as the F-DD.

Enough of the star/naval-gazing and on to the odditiy however.  I found that under scrutiny, the F-HDWE (Heavy war destroyer escort) has exactly the same armament as the F-HDW2, four LESS power, but costs 162 as opposed to the 145 of the F-HDW2.  I also noticed that it's the only fed escort that lacks the controversial and cheezy Ph-Gs.  Is something the matter here?  Mabey a oversight, mabey there's something about the F-HDWE that I haven't seen.

The armaments may be the same, but the internal "Non weapon options" are actually different between the 2 ships. The 4 APRs had to be converted to cargo boxes I believe (or something like that) for this to be a valid escort ship. I was just being thorough.

Quote:

I'm also wondering exactly what Firesoul plans to do with the casual carriers; 2/3 of 4 is 2.66 or 2, which would make casual carriers no different from normal war destroyers, or at least from the fed point of view.  So, what to be done with them then? 3 fighters is nice, but when scrutinized, it's not a whole lot better than the 2 a normal HDW will carry.  Four is enough to make a difference from 2, but I get the feeling that some consider this too many.  3 and consolation prizes, such as an extra 2 shuttles?  I dunno.
Anyway, more information on what is planned to be done with HDWC's would be nice,
 

The HDWCs have 4 fighters currently because I gave them 6 fighterbays and deck crews, which is the legal SFB limit for the HDWs to count as casual carriers and not FULL carriers. As you can see, the 2/3 rule is already applied and is correct.
.. as for the 2/3rds rule, I have changed my earlier decision of round down and will be just doing a "round".
2/3 of 4 is 2.66 which would mean 3, yes. .. I would however not follow that rule for PFs. It's going to be 2 PFs for a non PFT ship, and 4 for a Full PFT ship. It still kinda approximate to 2/3rds of SFb, but differently interpreted.


I hope this helps.
BTW: The Fed HDWCs differ to the HDWs in the following fashion:
The Fed HDWs have been given 1 transporter, 1 tractor, 1 shuttlebay and 1 lab for the 4 boxes of non-weapon options that I had to fill. The HDWCs have been given 4 more fighterbays (and thus fighters are now up to 6, from 2).


-- Luc

[Fluf]

Quote:

Quote:
You've got to be kidding me.

People are complaining about the flavor of their X-cheese in a CUSTOM shiplist? FS, I think you're right to leave it in if you're leaving in all other Taldren X-designs, but I like the X1 ships much better as a group -- more selection and more standardization in conversion rules.  

It would be okay D2-wise too.. it would mean that if the campaign lasts ALLllll the way up to 2300, then the Z-CCX2 becomes available.. only to be followed by the other "X2" ships in the shiplist.



The BIG difference would be in standard multiplayer games, I think. Advanced era is advanced era no matter how early or late it is within it... That ship should then still be selectable.
....  .. a good compromise.


-- Luc  

Thanks for the compromise Firesoul.  And yes Nomad, we are complaining about our cheese!    The Mirak have never had a heavy cruiser that could compete in PvP until we got the CCX.  Most were very disappointed when they saw it gutted and were not going to play on a server with Firesouls list.  I know that sounds very childish,  the "taking my ball and going home" line, but it is reality.  The CCX is the only ship the Mirak will use, even when the rest of the X2 ships come out.  Basically because all the other Mirak X ships are way to underpowered to fly, which of course, is a racial trait we deal with all the way from early era.  The orignal Z-CCX is a Taldren mistake I know.  However, considering this is a SFB list,  where is our Spearfish drone, ECM drone, ect ect.  You get my drift.  We want our Mirvs.  And actually think we should get them when the original CCX comes out in Firesouls list.  Our drones are supposed to make up for our lack of power, poor arcs and turning rates.  The CCX in Firesouls list will just be another underpowered Mirak heavy cruiser that no one will fly, because of the BPV draw the will face.  MIght as well fly a MDC+ with seven drones and pull in  smaller AI!  

But I do thank Firesoul for listening to us and reaching that compromise.

[Holocat]

Alright, a non PFT ship can have 2 PFTs.  A full PFT ship can have 4 PFTs.  I assume a full PFT ship is the PFT equivlant of a carrier.

Is there such thing as a casual PFT carrier, or is that just a non PFT ship with mechlinks? If a casual PFT carrier gets 2 PFT's, I get the idea that a casual fighter carrier with 3 fighters is being penalized more.

Meh.  I can't tell.  It's not like I can figure out whether it's unbalanced or not.

I suppose I simply want to know why the casual carriers are being percieved as unbalanced;  A drop from 4 to 3 is pretty drastic, but then I fully admit i'm biased, since i'm fed and flying the ship(s) under controversy.  Mabey if you kept four, but stuck them in one squadron instead of two?  three fighters and two shuttles?  Pfft, I dunno.  I find that with one ship alone the four fighters make a difference, but not that big of a difference, and using multiple casual carriers has it's own drawbacks.

If I sound like i'm whining about wanting to keep my cheeze, that's because I am,  

Holocat.

[jdmckinney]

I do have a Captain's Log (#16) that refers to a Kzinti X-drone ship, possibly an MDCX? Anyway, I don't have it on hand to check, but it is mentioned as having been in one of the defunct SFB newsletters, which aren't available. I would be very interested to see what that ship looked like. Apparently the D5DX was designed in a similar fashion.

You know, I thought one of the reasons people don't like OP is because of X-ships. It just seems kind of funny we're even discussing this if Xes are so hated.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Alright, a non PFT ship can have 2 PFTs.  A full PFT ship can have 4 PFTs.  I assume a full PFT ship is the PFT equivlant of a carrier.

Is there such thing as a casual PFT carrier, or is that just a non PFT ship with mechlinks? If a casual PFT carrier gets 2 PFT's, I get the idea that a casual fighter carrier with 3 fighters is being penalized more.

Meh.  I can't tell.  It's not like I can figure out whether it's unbalanced or not.

I suppose I simply want to know why the casual carriers are being percieved as unbalanced;  A drop from 4 to 3 is pretty drastic, but then I fully admit i'm biased, since i'm fed and flying the ship(s) under controversy.  Mabey if you kept four, but stuck them in one squadron instead of two?  three fighters and two shuttles?  Pfft, I dunno.  I find that with one ship alone the four fighters make a difference, but not that big of a difference, and using multiple casual carriers has it's own drawbacks.

If I sound like i'm whining about wanting to keep my cheeze, that's because I am,  

A ship with 2, or 4 Mechlinks would have 2 PFs, following Taldren's style of doing things. A ship with 6 Mechlinks would have 4 PFs. Sometimes that should would even be called a "Casual PFT" because it just happened to become that way.
All Lyran "T" refits are as such.


.. as for balancing casual carriers with normal fighters..
.. Why the heck should the Mobile Carriers with 6 fighters be dropped down to 4 while Random J Casual Carrier would keep its 6? The balance is I want to apply the 2/3rds rule everywhere. No exceptions.  .. That's why I want to talk about it first, because this could very well turn out that if too many people say "No!" I won't do it.

Fortunately, a lot of people have said instead "It's just 1 or 2 fighters? .. BPV adjustments? .. It's fair. Unfortunate for those who use those ships but fair."

-- Luc

[FireSoul]

Quote:
I do have a Captain's Log (#16) that refers to a Kzinti X-drone ship, possibly an MDCX? Anyway, I don't have it on hand to check, but it is mentioned as having been in one of the defunct SFB newsletters, which aren't available. I would be very interested to see what that ship looked like. Apparently the D5DX was designed in a similar fashion.

You know, I thought one of the reasons people don't like OP is because of X-ships. It just seems kind of funny we're even discussing this if Xes are so hated.  

I have refused requests for ships from captain's logs, but I have accepted adding the X ships from them.  If you can get me the SSD for the named ship, it would be a good addition.


-- Luc

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
[. .. I would however not follow that rule for PFs. It's going to be 2 PFs for a non PFT ship, and 4 for a Full PFT ship. It still kinda approximate to 2/3rds of SFb, but differently interpreted.


I hope this helps.
-- Luc  

Just keep in mind that some ships are considered Full PFT's but in Taldrens list they have only 2 PF's attached to them and should have a full load of 4.  Namely a few Lyrans, Lion DN, Wildcat BC, Hellcat BCH, etc.  These are listed in the SFB R section as being full PF tenders and not casual carriers(due to the repair boxes I guess)

On the 1st Gen X-Ships,  you kept the Mirak 1X did you keep all of the other wonder boats like the F-CCX and the K-DX or did you replace them with your subpar versions????


I'm kidding!!!   Everyone knows who had the worst 1X ships in the game.