Topic: OP+ corrections thread (Read 70281 times)

The_Infiltrator · « **Reply #340 on:** May 18, 2003, 11:05:49 am »

Quote:

The I-CPF is a CL hull. It only carries a couple phasers. It and the CPFW (adds Ph3s) should be classed as LIGHT_CRUISER. Nobody will ever buy this ship at even that pricing bracket, but it is better than NCA.

As for the D6/KR issue, the class changes only affect price and availability on the D2. Such changes would not alter the BPV matchups or effectiveness of the ships. The D6 is worse than a D5, yet it costs more if it is considered a CA. It may have more warp, but it has CL shields and weapons. Until D5s come out, the D6 class is the only CL the Klingons have. More warp + 1.0 move cost pretty much equal a ship with less warp and a .67 move cost. I think the D6-based ships are reasonable to consider CLs.

Concerning shiplist corrections, if I've read FS right in past posts, he has only fixed those ship errors that he has come across or had brought to his attention. It is entirely possible (even probable) that there are errors he has not identified yet. I've been working on a straight reworking of the default shiplist to SFB specs, but it takes me a long time to do because I'm checking every single ship against the SSDs. That's the difference between having a shiplist to play and having one that's still unreleased.

See, I don't buy the argument that a D6 is a light cruiser. It's a heavy cruiser. It's even listed as one. It's just a crappy heavy cruiser. Compare this:
Designation: K-D6B
BPV: 128
Crew: 43
Marines: 14
Shield 1: 30
Shield 2 & 6: 22
Shield 3 & 5: 22
Shield 4: 22
Total Shields: 140

Movement Cost: 1
Turn Mode: B
Total Warp Power: 30
Impulse Power: 5
Aux Power: 2
Total Engine Power: 35
Battery: 3

Transporters: 5
Tractors: 3
Mech Tractors:
Shuttles: 2
Fighters:

4x Disruptor 3
2x Missle Rack A
7x Phaser 2
1x ADD 6

With:
Designation: K-D5
BPV: 110
Crew: 39
Marines: 8
Shield 1: 30
Shield 2 & 6: 26
Shield 3 & 5: 26
Shield 4: 26
Total Shields: 160

Movement Cost: 0.67
Turn Mode: B
Total Warp Power: 24
Impulse Power: 5
Aux Power: 2
Total Engine Power: 29
Battery: 3

Transporters: 3
Tractors: 3
Mech Tractors:
Shuttles: 2
Fighters:

4x Disruptor 3
2x Missle Rack A
2x Phaser 1
2x Phaser 2
4x Phaser 3
2x AMD 12

These are the 2 variants available at the same time, the D6B in 2265 and the D5 available in 2268. In comparison, the D6 has more phasers (though all are ph-2), more transporters, and (something that people generally don't consider), more internals (76 on the D5, 81 on the D6 by my quick count). The last means it's takes enemy fire better than the D5. It's true that they have the same shielding. It's also true that so does the D7 - the D6 and D7 have the same amount of shielding. Again, CA level stuff. Comparing the D6 to D7 again, the power plant on the D7 has only 2 more points of aux power as well, and it has 2 more ph-2. As for the argument that the klingons don't have a CL then, MANY races don't have a CL. Hydrans for instance don't get a CL of any type until 2268 with the horseman. The D6 is a CA and should be treated as one.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #341 on:** May 18, 2003, 01:58:43 pm »

Some very good points there. Note the D6 has LESS shielding than the D5, and a worse power curve. Actually, most players would take a D5 over a D7. The D5 is a war cruiser, so really the Klingons, as with other races, skip CLs altogether. They don't actually have ANY. Upon examination of your arguments, and looking at the Hydrans as a common foe with similar ship production, the D6s are like unrefitted DGs -- poor cruisers that are best used as hulls to build variants from. Still, for pricing and availability, I would rather see a D6 model in the CL class on the D2. That's certainly up to the admin running a campaign, so it need not be addressed in a common shiplist. However, D6s and KRs should be classed the same, whichever way is chosen.

This is exactly why I like these threads -- people can discuss things and find common ground or improvements without getting into a flamefest.

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #342 on:** May 18, 2003, 04:56:08 pm »

Actually, the Ship Class ("Class Type") determines more than Dynaverse stuff, it affects Hit&Run vulnerability since 2.0055.

H&R Modifier:

Frigate and Carrier = 9/6
Destroyer = 9/7
War Destroyer = 9/8
Light Cruiser = 9/9
Heavy Cruiser, New Heavy Cruiser, and Special = 9/10
Heavy Battlecruiser = 9/12
Dreadnought = 9/14
Battleship = 9/16

Here's the H&R formula:

(20-(DefendingMarines*Modifier))/60 = Vulnerability

So a ship with no marines has a vulnerability of 20/60 or 0.33 or 33%.
Note that the product of DefendingMarines*Modifier has an upper limit of 16, which means a minimum vulnerability of 0.067 or 6.7%.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #345 on:** May 20, 2003, 09:00:22 pm »

Hey guys, just a quick question. Does this shiplist include Monitors? I never really checked if the original OP shiplist ever included them.

FireSoul · « **Reply #346 on:** May 20, 2003, 10:10:50 pm »

Yes.

.. why?

Magnum357 · « **Reply #348 on:** May 21, 2003, 01:06:21 am »

I was just curious Fire Soul. Harly anybody in SFC and SFB mentions them much, but I find them a very facinating type of ship. lumbering beasts that have a heck of amount of firepower yet slower then crap. Never really tried them before in SFC. But now I know why, Taldren never included them.

FireSoul · « **Reply #349 on:** May 21, 2003, 01:35:37 am »

Taldren included *1* Monitor in SFC:OP: The LDR one.

.. .. anyways.
.. note to self:

Check to redo weapons on ISC CMs.
.. also, check fighterlist for H-WASP costs.

FireSoul · « **Reply #350 on:** May 22, 2003, 02:04:33 am »

Note to self:

The Z-MBT(+) aka Z-MTT-B needs to have its disruptors reorganized. Just 2 banks for 5 dizzies seems odd.

FireSoul · « **Reply #351 on:** May 22, 2003, 04:39:03 am »

Note to self:

The plasma-race's HDWs need to have both a Plasma-D and Ph1 variant for their HDWEs. Similarly, the Klingon's HF5E and the Mirak HDWE should have both a ph1 and a ADD12 variant. The Fed HDWE should have both a ph1 and Drone-G variant. The hydran's HDWE is fine, with the extra phGs. The lyran HDWE is stuck with ph1s, I guess.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #352 on:** May 22, 2003, 06:43:14 am »

I don't have the heavy destroyer option mount rules in front of me. Question: are ESGs (at 1 per 2 weapon boxes?) prohibited from the weapon option spots on Lyran HDWs? If not, an ESG version would be a good second escort variant.

FireSoul · « **Reply #353 on:** May 22, 2003, 06:55:12 am »

Yes, it's prohibited.. for 2 reasons too.

1- HDWs are Size-class 4. Option-mount rules state the ship needs to be size-class 3 or larger.

2- the 2 option mounts are considered 'hull mounted', but are not together. They can't be used this way.
.. in fact, the only HDW with 2 weapon options that are together is the Gorn's..
.. hence, there are more Grn HBD variants:
HBD1: 2x PlasmaFs RH (AP)
HBD2: 1x PlasmaG RH (AP) (!!!)
HBD3: 2x PlasmaD RAR/RAL arc to simulate RPR/LPR arc. (this could also have been "RH" by the rules)
HBD4: 2x Ph1 (I always made at least one of these per race)

Note that the ISC's HDD has RH PlasmaDs and the 2 rear plasmas are in a single mount: I ran out of mounts for it. Maybe I should put the ship on a larger model? I could then split the rear optionmounts and give the plasma-Ds separate arcs for better coverage, as well as separate pseudos for the Fs.

-- Luc

jdmckinney · « **Reply #354 on:** May 22, 2003, 02:09:27 pm »

I suspected as much. No HDW-sized EGOs, then.

Is there a 3-ESG ship in the current list? I haven't looked closely at the Lyran specs, but I seem to remember a battle tug or somesuch having a total of 3 ESGs when using a pallet. I've always thought a 3-ESG ship would be a good thing on a cruiser, so you have something between the CAs and the 4-ESG BC(H)s. I'll have to crack a few SSD books to satisfy my curiosity now.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #355 on:** May 22, 2003, 02:48:37 pm »

In SFB, the Lyran and LDR LBTs (Light Battle Transport) have three ESGs with the Klink battle pod.

The_Infiltrator · « **Reply #357 on:** May 22, 2003, 04:30:57 pm »

Something to consider: FRD's aren't armed like they are supposed to be. Plus, bases need work. There's a lot more combinations you can have depending on what modules are mounted.

The_Infiltrator · « **Reply #359 on:** May 23, 2003, 12:05:59 am »

I hate to tell you this, but ph-3 armed planets won't work. This idea was tried long ago and the problem is that all weapons on a planet are put at it's "core", IE the center of the model. The range of the ph-3 is low enough so that the planet's radius, the surface, is out of range of the weapon. They therefore are totally ineffective. Same reason you can't put fighters or drones on a planet; they "impact" the inner surface of the planet and destroy themselves. Plasmas will fire and escape the core, however, you'll hear a nice series of collision noises as the plasma round penetrates the planet's shell as it moves on it's way to you.

I didn't design the way it works, I just play it.

News:

Topic: OP+ corrections thread (Read 70281 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

The_Infiltrator

jdmckinney

TarMinyatur

The_Infiltrator

Cleaven

Magnum357

FireSoul

jimmi7769

Magnum357

FireSoul

FireSoul

FireSoul

jdmckinney

FireSoul

jdmckinney

Rod O'neal

Strafer

The_Infiltrator

FireSoul

The_Infiltrator

Topic: OP+ corrections thread (Read 70281 times)