Topic: OP+ shiplist version 2.1 is ready and up.

[FireSoul]

you do realize that by that SSD, the L-NCAL is worth 169 BPV?  (164 + 5 for UIM adjustment)
-- Luc  

[TarMinyatur]

Yeah, that version is a bit pricey at 169 with 2 Ph-3's for padding, 2 less shuttles, and 1 less APR than Taldren's NCAL. Although this ships specs are similar to the rarely flown L-CCH at 170 in SFC2.

BPV isn't a science as we all know.

[FireSoul]

Quote:

6+ = 2/3rds rule
5 = 4
4 = 4
3 = 3
2 = 2
1 = 1

That would make it..
8 = 5
7 = 5
6 = 4
5 = 4
4 = 4
3 = 3
2 = 2
1 = 1

That's a lot of 4s..  I don't think it's right.  (And yes, you SHOULD feel that 2 fighters aren't impressive. :-)
-- Luc

[Rod O'neal]

As far as the 2/3 rule goes, I basically agree with it, for balance with the PF races. I do think that small true carriers should keep all their fighters and the Hydran casual carriers should keep all of theirs, because of their racial tendencies.    

[Holocat]

Alright, I talked with firesoul's nerfed comments and it sparked a curiousity in me.

The first thing I did was determine if the ISC were nerfed to the extent where I would believe it.  (ie I can kill X with OP+ 2.0 but not 2.1)  I'd played the ISC only very, very rarely but I HAD begun to move away from by beloved Federation destroyers and experiment with fighers (thanks to the heavy casual carrier war destroyers).  So, in the next hour or so I flew some ISC skirmishes against AI.

My mentality was thus:  How much harder does it feel from 2.0 to 2.1 with three (randomly picked) ISC carriers?  Secondly, I payed attention to the damage given and damage recieved for the battles (though I didn't chew through them or write them down) and the length of the battle.

From 2.0 to 2.1, I didn't notice any significant changes in battle length, damage recieved, damage dealt, or the 'feel of difficulty.'  Some of the carriers have been hit pretty hard, yes, but I found the same ships as opponents were about the same amount of challange for either 2.1 or 2.0.  

Also, remember there's a BVP adjustment, so mission matching should be alright (I haven't tested this, though).

So I can't complain.  I haven't done any PvP, but if there's an ISC out there willing to have a go with both 2.0 and 2.1, we can test this aspect fairly quickly.  I'm also not a ISC player, but I can only really comment on what i've done to see if the changes REALLY are nerfing or not.

Meow,

Holocat.
   

[Fluf]

Looks good so far FS.  I would be interested in playing this list with the fighter changes.  Note the following Kzin ships still need dizzy hardpoints split:  CM, CM+, CMX, MCV, MCV+,MTTCVA into 3 hardpoints on the 1,2 and 9 hardpoints. This makes these ships almost flyable.  Although the reduction in fighters on the MTTCVA makes it a worthless ship now.

I also have a few questions about the CVA and the SCS.  I was under the impression that the SCS was the mother of all ships in the Kzinti Empire and originally had over 30 fighters.  As it stands now, the SCS has 4 less fighters,  1 less shuttle and is 1 more BPV over the CVA but does have the 2xAMD12 vs the 2xAMD6 of the CVA.  And is the correction from 6 shuttles to 4 on the CVA correct?  As it stands now, the SCS would cost more in D2 terms but would have less firepower.
I dont have the SSD's so I am unable to comment on this specifically.  But in D2 terms and even GSA terms, this makes the SCS about worthless.  I would rather see the deck crews bumped on the SCS and give it 24 fighters with the appropriate BPV adjustment.

[Julin Eurthyr]

I'll mention this on the ISC fighter debate.

ISC carriers in SFC has basically always broken the 2/3 fighter conversion rule.  Taldren deemed fit to give us (ISC) more fighters per squadron as our fighters do not have a "fighter heavy weapon".  The exact metnod of determining the "extra" fighters ISC carriers got to offset the lack of a fighter heavy weapon I have forgotten over the years (if it was ever made public...)

Firesoul, I know you are endeavoring to keep your OP+ shipliist true to the spirit of SFC while orienting it more in-line with SFB.  How the SFC ISC phaser figher bonus affects your work is, as always, your decision.

I will also mention (for those who may not know), ISC carriers in SFB usually (I won't make a blanket always) operated in groups of 2 Phaser-fighters and 1 Torpedo fighter.  So, the usual 12 fighter ISC squadron had:  7 Phaser-fighters (SF), 4 Torpedo fighters (TF), and one EW fighter (based off the SF platform...).

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Looks good so far FS.  I would be interested in playing this list with the fighter changes.  Note the following Kzin ships still need dizzy hardpoints split:  CM, CM+, CMX, MCV, MCV+,MTTCVA into 3 hardpoints on the 1,2 and 9 hardpoints. This makes these ships almost flyable.  Although the reduction in fighters on the MTTCVA makes it a worthless ship now.

I also have a few questions about the CVA and the SCS.  I was under the impression that the SCS was the mother of all ships in the Kzinti Empire and originally had over 30 fighters.  As it stands now, the SCS has 4 less fighters,  1 less shuttle and is 1 more BPV over the CVA but does have the 2xAMD12 vs the 2xAMD6 of the CVA.  And is the correction from 6 shuttles to 4 on the CVA correct?  As it stands now, the SCS would cost more in D2 terms but would have less firepower.
I dont have the SSD's so I am unable to comment on this specifically.  But in D2 terms and even GSA terms, this makes the SCS about worthless.  I would rather see the deck crews bumped on the SCS and give it 24 fighters with the appropriate BPV adjustment.  

Ok. Noted the hardpoint splits for given ships.

.. as for the SCS.. hmmm.. the SCS isn't the SFB's SSCS you know. That one has 13 PFs and plenty of fighters.
Let's see.. the SCS itself has PFs normally..Maybe I did nerf that one unintentionally.

As for the MTTCVA, it's just 1 fighter less. How does that make it useless?  It's a ship I added myself anyways..

 

[FireSoul]

If the 2/3rds rule is too troublesome, know that I have created a shiplist without the 2/3rules included, but the rest of the changes remains in place.
It wouldn't be too much a big deal for me to throw out the 2/3rds idea and continue on without it. Call it "2.1b".

-- Luc

[Corbomite]

Quote:
ISC carriers in SFC has basically always broken the 2/3 fighter conversion rule. Taldren deemed fit to give us (ISC) more fighters per squadron as our fighters do not have a "fighter heavy weapon". The exact metnod of determining the "extra" fighters ISC carriers got to offset the lack of a fighter heavy weapon I have forgotten over the years (if it was ever made public...)

I already brought that point up on the server chat. FS didn't seem impressed. Everyone just seems to fixate on the fact that Caveat III's have a ton of PH-G's, not realizing that in having to get so close to their target to hit, they usually get destroyed with their target. ISC fighter attrition is very high unless you are very careful. The ISC have exactly two battle worthy fighter types, Tort III and Caveat III, which come out very late, the rest are just canon fodder. As I said, it doesn't really matter to me that much. I'll learn to play around it just as I have every other change that has come along. I just think when it comes to carriers and other fighter carrying ships that they should be evaluated individually, not just having all of them follow the same pattern. It may work well for 3/4 of them, but others will be hurt. This of course will require more work and attention than a blanket policy of 2/3 and TS for the one's that suffer.
 

[FireSoul]

Ok.. What I've seen so far are people who are interested in the 2/3rds idea, but that's about it..
.. then there are the people who are against it.


.. I am currently working on the 2.1b version. It's a lot less aggravation for everyone that way.
Give till tonight because I have to review the hydran BPVs again. .. and there's the fixes noted above in this thread.

-- Luc

[jimmi7769]

Quote:

Quote:
Looks good so far FS.  I would be interested in playing this list with the fighter changes.  Note the following Kzin ships still need dizzy hardpoints split:  CM, CM+, CMX, MCV, MCV+,MTTCVA into 3 hardpoints on the 1,2 and 9 hardpoints. This makes these ships almost flyable.  Although the reduction in fighters on the MTTCVA makes it a worthless ship now.

I also have a few questions about the CVA and the SCS.  I was under the impression that the SCS was the mother of all ships in the Kzinti Empire and originally had over 30 fighters.  As it stands now, the SCS has 4 less fighters,  1 less shuttle and is 1 more BPV over the CVA but does have the 2xAMD12 vs the 2xAMD6 of the CVA.  And is the correction from 6 shuttles to 4 on the CVA correct?  As it stands now, the SCS would cost more in D2 terms but would have less firepower.
I dont have the SSD's so I am unable to comment on this specifically.  But in D2 terms and even GSA terms, this makes the SCS about worthless.  I would rather see the deck crews bumped on the SCS and give it 24 fighters with the appropriate BPV adjustment.  

Ok. Noted the hardpoint splits for given ships.

.. as for the SCS.. hmmm.. the SCS isn't the SFB's SSCS you know. That one has 13 PFs and plenty of fighters.
Let's see.. the SCS itself has PFs normally..Maybe I did nerf that one unintentionally.

As for the MTTCVA, it's just 1 fighter less. How does that make it useless?  It's a ship I added myself anyways..

 

The SCS really needs to be removed.  It is esentially a CVA with half of it's fighters replaced with a flotilla of PF's which the Mirak don't have in SFC so it ends up being a CVA with less fighters.  A truly sad end for such a noble ship.

[jdmckinney]

I agree on the SCSes. There is no place for them in SFC, since they are by definition combined fighter/PF carriers. Certainly you could come up with a set number of fighters per PF as a replacement scheme, but what would be the point? The fighter races have plenty of carriers. It only further handicaps PF races.

The only time I'd argue for inclusion of the control ships (in CL25 there are also Division Control Ships -- smaller versions of the same concept) would be in a fighters/PFs-for-all-races mod.

[FireSoul]

Please close and drop this thread. OP+ 2.1 is no more.
Instead, go to the OP+ 2.1b thread.

-- Luc