Topic: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?

[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.

[Fluf]

I have to agree Mace, the Klingon D7X just sucked.  The F-CCX wanst that bad of a boat, but it still didnt compare to the Z-CCX.  None of the first generations X ships did.  The Z-CCX is a OTT boat when comparing it with any other first genX ship, and it needed to be adjusted.  It was a campaign ender most of the time, which if you remember is what happened to RT3 last year.  I would have rather seen the other first genX ships improved to match the CCX instead of seeing it cut.  But I agree with Firesouls decision and compromise.  The only thing I dont like is "G-Racks" lol.  I would have rather seen "E" Racks on this boat and at least 2 PhsGs left on the rear. But oh well.

And yes Nomad, is funny we are debating the X ships.  However, Im not a hardcore SFBer.  I played the FASA game before SFB.  I enjoy the X ships in OP and think OP has the ability to lead all the way into the TNG generation in a balanced fashion if done right.  Most D2 campaign never make it into the Advanced era, because of length of time and campaign VC's, so the campaign usually ends before the X ships come out.  But its the diversity in OP and the extra ships and even the advanced era which brings me back to it.

Many thanks to Firesoul for developing this shiplist.  Its a work of art!

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
I have to agree Mace, the Klingon D7X just sucked.  The F-CCX wanst that bad of a boat, but it still didnt compare to the Z-CCX.  None of the first generations X ships did.  The Z-CCX is a OTT boat when comparing it with any other first genX ship, and it needed to be adjusted.  It was a campaign ender most of the time, which if you remember is what happened to RT3 last year.  I would have rather seen the other first genX ships improved to match the CCX instead of seeing it cut.  But I agree with Firesouls decision and compromise.  The only thing I dont like is "G-Racks" lol.  I would have rather seen "E" Racks on this boat and at least 2 PhsGs left on the rear. But oh well.

And yes Nomad, is funny we are debating the X ships.  However, Im not a hardcore SFBer.  I played the FASA game before SFB.  I enjoy the X ships in OP and think OP has the ability to lead all the way into the TNG generation in a balanced fashion if done right.  Most D2 campaign never make it into the Advanced era, because of length of time and campaign VC's, so the campaign usually ends before the X ships come out.  But its the diversity in OP and the extra ships and even the advanced era which brings me back to it.

Many thanks to Firesoul for developing this shiplist.  Its a work of art!  

The X-ships shouldn't have standard G-racks on them.  they have a Gx rack which is pretty much a G-rack with 6 rounds instead of 4.  To simulate this they should have B-Racks and AMD-B's instead of G-racks and AMD-A's.

[jdmckinney]

Quote:
The X-ships shouldn't have standard G-racks on them.  they have a Gx rack which is pretty much a G-rack with 6 rounds instead of 4.  To simulate this they should have B-Racks and AMD-B's instead of G-racks and AMD-A's.

Personally, I agree with this translation. The GX racks are essentially bigger Gs, so since SFC requires separate drones and ADDs, it is an easy thing to put in Bs and ADD-12s instead of Gs and ADD-6s. The trouble here might be that any scripted universal edits FS might do regarding drone rack or ADD reloads could affect these ships.

Anyway, I can't really comment on Xes in OP+ just because I haven't actually looked closely at them, and I've certainly not taken the time to play them.

FS, on the phantom MCDX (if that's what it was called), there is no way for me to get this ship. The only way I can think of to get it would be to find someone who had that obsolete newsletter (Star Fleet Times? there were a couple different ones, and I still need to check where it said the ship was published when I get home).

On other CL ships, there are many considered conjectural -- designed but never built, usually. However, some were simply published there as new ships that don't show up in the main body of SSD modules. For instance, they recently published an improved Kzinti survey cruiser. The SRI (SRI+, SRIV as I have begun referring to it in my list) was published because someone convinced them the SR was done wrong. Instead of going back and replacing it altogether with the new specs, the SRI is now available as an alternative or refit. Granted, this is not exactly a ship people would be clamoring for, but it does show an example of how ADB publishes additional legal, actual production ships in CLs now and then. Certainly there should be a legitimacy vs. value test to see if a CL ship is worth adding.

Overall, I find it really cool that the list is in such good shape that we are down to debating minor additions. It shows just how much work you've done on this project.

[CptCastrin]

Quote:
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.  

Well I hate to say it but if it came to allowing the Z-CCX2 in at the pain of all other races (thus making them leave in droves) or just allowing the Z-CCX which is by far more ballanced compared to the other x1 ships then I'd go with the second choice.

Simply put NO X-tech heavy weapons should be on a x1 era ship. Though there are some examples of x1.5 ships, those were mostly prototypes and never saw combat if they even truely exisited.

If there is to be a Z-CCX2 then there shold be equivalents in all races for the same and that is a game balance nightmare (does anyone REALLY want to see a F-CCX with HPTs?).

Look I love Kzin/Mirak (my 2nd fav race btw) ships but the Z-CCX a la Taldren was a bad idea. If it comes back to the OP+ shiplist (as the Z-CCX2)  then for the sake of all the other races it will most probably be a "R" classed ship and never see the deeps of space on a server that I run (excepting if the rest of the group want it included in a particular campaign). When some race has a weapon that there is no real defense for it's pretty much game over. MIRV racks fit this discription in SFC in that gap where other races only have pre-X tech to defend against them.

The case that Kzin/Mirak ships turn like boats and have no power is a bad argument for including MIRV racks. The Feds have long had to deal with the same however we don't have the luxury of a weapon that can be added and that has no power cost yet can rip a ship to shreads in record time. Equiping HPTs would proably be the death of us.  

The SFB crew had it right and I apploded Firesoul for using the SFB version. Even if it means that a sometime ally gets a ship that they are not happy with.

So if not having the "Z-CCX2" prevents you from playing on a OP+ server I'm sorry to hear that but them's the breaks. I'd rather have a server full of Klinks, Lyrans (you guys are nuts), Feds, and what not then sacrifice them just so I can get some Mirak to play. Sorry, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few (now where did I hear that?  ).

   

[FireSoul]

Quote:

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)

You haven't seen my shiplist lately, have you..  

Quote:

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.  

Replaced them with the REAL versions.  
 

[FireSoul]

Quote:

The X-ships shouldn't have standard G-racks on them. they have a Gx rack which is pretty much a G-rack with 6 rounds instead of 4. To simulate this they should have B-Racks and AMD-B's instead of G-racks and AMD-A's.

ADD12s.. crap you're right.

.. however, to keep them as G-racks in the UIs, I left them in as G-racks... but with 3 reloads for the AI side of things. I hope no one minds... I found the aestatics more pleasing.
 

[FireSoul]

Quote:
So if not having the "Z-CCX2" prevents you from playing on a OP+ server I'm sorry to hear that but them's the breaks. I'd rather have a server full of Klinks, Lyrans (you guys are nuts), Feds, and what not then sacrifice them just so I can get some Mirak to play. Sorry, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few (now where did I hear that?  ).
 

I am fine with putting it in as a "R" ship .. even as a normal ship. By the time it comes out, everyone has an xship so the MIRVs won't be that much of an issue.

-- Luc