Topic: Patrol Battle Rule Links  (Read 22741 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KHH Jakle

  • Moderator
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 602
Re: Patrol Battle Rule Links
« Reply #40 on: May 17, 2005, 12:51:06 pm »
CONSPIRACY!!!!!

Crap...In addition to that, I did also forget that the Old Heavy Battle Tugs needed to be moved to Command as well.

Offline KHH Jakle

  • Moderator
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 602
Re: Patrol Battle Rule Links
« Reply #41 on: May 17, 2005, 01:02:15 pm »
L-STL is missing off the Command list,

Check again - it's there.  Look for L-STL#

Offline KHH Jakle

  • Moderator
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 602
Re: Patrol Battle Rule Links
« Reply #42 on: May 20, 2005, 08:31:26 am »
Matrices are updated...again

762_XC

  • Guest
Re: Patrol Battle Rule Links
« Reply #43 on: May 22, 2005, 01:26:57 pm »
Isn't the F-HDWC a command ship? You have it in combat support.

H-XFE is a 2nd gen X-ship and should be off the list.

Offline KHH Jakle

  • Moderator
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 602
Re: Patrol Battle Rule Links
« Reply #44 on: May 22, 2005, 05:42:53 pm »
That XFE must be an old carry over from when 2nd Gen X ships were theoretically allowed.

I am not sure about the HDWC.  Firesouls Heavy War Destroyers are product of his providing a bunch of different designs, since these ships were modular or whatever.  His naming conventions are a bit puzzling, so if this is a command variant, it must not been clearly spelled out.

THat being said, I did notice he added a new column to the shiplist where he would write things like "COmmand" or "Line Ship"

I'll have to take a look at that one - as well as all the other HWD's for the other races. If this proves to be a Command Variant, I am sure the other races will have a counterpart.

oh joy.... :-\

Offline KHH Jakle

  • Moderator
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 602
Re: Patrol Battle Rule Links
« Reply #45 on: May 23, 2005, 01:53:42 pm »
Isn't the F-HDWC a command ship? You have it in combat support.


Negative.  I checked out the 4.0 Shiplist.  Firesoul calls this a 'Cas' Heavy War Destroyer, short of Casual - which is further short for Casual Carrier.  It carries 4 fighters. 

Actually, since it's a casual carrier (same as many hydran ships are casual carriers) this shouldn't even be Combat Support - this is a line ship.

762_XC

  • Guest
Re: Patrol Battle Rule Links
« Reply #46 on: May 23, 2005, 04:59:27 pm »
Gotcha. Wierd nomenclature.

Offline KHH Jakle

  • Moderator
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 602
Re: Patrol Battle Rule Links
« Reply #47 on: May 24, 2005, 12:30:27 pm »
Hydran Matrix Corrected

For Klinks, ISC, Mirak and Feds:

These races all have a Casual Carrier version of their heavy war destroyer.  Casual Carriers are not subject to carrier/escort rules - these are basically line ships that carry fighters as weapon platforms (like most Hydran ships).

These were initially listed as Combat Support, but they have been removed - they are now unrestricted.

This should be the last update (I hope)

Offline TraumaTech

  • DON'T PISS OFF THE KITTY
  • Hot and Spicy
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 619
  • Gender: Male
Re: Patrol Battle Rule Links
« Reply #48 on: June 08, 2005, 06:48:34 pm »
hello again Jakle.......once again into the breech  :)   re: the L- DND   i have finally gotten around to reading the material you sent to me,and i now ask that the L-DND be  placed into it's more proper category,which is Support.This ships two primary role was for local homeworld defense,or used as escorts for carriers and other ships.despite it's exorbitant cost re: making one cost the price of a dreadnaught,it is still just a support vessel,albeit an expensive one.Also the name/class"Mountain Lion",was actually given it by the federation to reflect it's origins and stature,not the command varient designation you feel it should have. As i read the material,i do not believe you should be able to interpret this in any way other than as a support vessel.   thank you

Offline TraumaTech

  • DON'T PISS OFF THE KITTY
  • Hot and Spicy
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 619
  • Gender: Male
Re: Patrol Battle Rule Links
« Reply #49 on: June 10, 2005, 09:02:09 pm »
bump

Offline KHH Jakle

  • Moderator
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 602
Re: Patrol Battle Rule Links
« Reply #50 on: June 10, 2005, 10:20:02 pm »
I emailed that thing to you a month ago.

You just now want to chime in on your ruling?

And then you want to bump this as if I am not responding fast enough?

For the record, maybe Support is a better place for it - so long as it's restricted.

But I've got a piece of news for you TT:

v 4.0 is it, and the current Matrix versions are it.

Any further modifications will have to go through Kroma or DH, it's theirs now - should it actually need sheparding (if this gig's dead, what's the point)

Offline TraumaTech

  • DON'T PISS OFF THE KITTY
  • Hot and Spicy
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 619
  • Gender: Male
Re: Patrol Battle Rule Links
« Reply #51 on: June 11, 2005, 09:01:45 pm »
I emailed that thing to you a month ago.

You just now want to chime in on your ruling?

And then you want to bump this as if I am not responding fast enough?

For the record, maybe Support is a better place for it - so long as it's restricted.

But I've got a piece of news for you TT:

v 4.0 is it, and the current Matrix versions are it.

Any further modifications will have to go through Kroma or DH, it's theirs now - should it actually need sheparding (if this gig's dead, what's the point)


    Jakle    pull your head out of your  - - -  and smell the free air      this all started when you erroneously placed the L-DND  into a command varient class. I simply asked why you placed it there,when there was nothing showing in the ship description to explain why it was placed there.I SIMPLY ASKED???You for some reason(as usual) when i ask a question, answered it rudely or at least flippantly and stated it was command varient,because i described it as an "awsome ship",and all "awsome ships",get a designation of command varient.I accepted this but asked for your source material for your reasoning,simply to understand.U don't seem to have a problem answering other peoples concerns ,about why a certain ship gets placed in a particular category.Why do you have probs with my questions?
                     As for the "bump" that was not to speed you up ,but as you had posted a new thread after i had given a response,i figured you didn't get the indication showing when a new response had been posted to a thread,so i bumped it,PLAIN AND SIMPLE,not as "YOU" supposed to speed up your reply.SOOOOOO,grow up and get over whatever you feel it is,that i offended you in the past.Near as i can remember,both publicly and by private message i have tried to bury the hatchet with you,apparently....... to no avail.If PBR doesn't continue on in the future,that would be ashame,as it was a great idea you came up with,and those in the sfc community that like it or some form of ladder league will miss it.

Offline KHH Jakle

  • Moderator
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 602
Re: Patrol Battle Rule Links
« Reply #52 on: June 13, 2005, 07:55:46 am »
'Erroneously' in your opinion....which doesn't go too far with me. 

It seems to me that the ulterior motive is to have the ship placed in support, where it can be used along side another command variant, thus bringing into play two strong ships, where currently you couldn't with the DND as a command variant.

However, in the end, it's all subjective.  Hell, I can admit the possibility of me being wrong.  It would seem PBR has been a 2 year exercise in that.

The bottom line is I am no longer maintaining PBR.  I carried through to where it is, and now I am done with it.  I gave you an oppurtunity to get a final resolution on this - you neglected to follow up on it till now.  You missed the boat with me. 

You can take it up with Kroma (who had offered to host PBR on his own website - at which point I'll take it off mine).  If he opts to not pick it up, then it will remain up on mine indefinitely - but it will not be updated.

You may want to consider copying and pasting the ship description into a seperate thread and getting the rest of the PBR playing community's opinion - that's what I would have ended up doing.

Good Luck.



Offline TraumaTech

  • DON'T PISS OFF THE KITTY
  • Hot and Spicy
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 619
  • Gender: Male
Re: Patrol Battle Rule Links
« Reply #53 on: June 13, 2005, 05:59:43 pm »
'Erroneously' in your opinion....which doesn't go too far with me. 


i didn't base my last response on my opinion,but on the material you sent me,which i have started a new thread in which i typed out that same material verbatim.........



It seems to me that the ulterior motive is to have the ship placed in support, where it can be used along side another command variant, thus bringing into play two strong ships, where currently you couldn't with the DND as a command variant.


  prior to finding out it had been placed in command varient,i had it placed as a  unrestricted ship,because there was no description  decribing it as a command varient or escort.As such i only wanted to know why this particular ship which didn't have an "L" or "E" as part of it designatiom was now a command varient.No ulterior motive at all;after having read your material,i agree that it should be restricted,as a support vessel,not command varient.Would i like to have it as an unrestricted ship.....YES,who wouldn't??I am only doing ,as one of FSD leaders what is best for the lyran fleet/race,and according to SFB source material,it was used as a support vessel




However, in the end, it's all subjective.  Hell, I can admit the possibility of me being wrong.  It would seem PBR has been a 2 year exercise in that.


        PBR  has been a two year exercise in learning ships and tactics.Any errors/mistakes i am fairly certain are more in your mind than in the SFC/OP community ..........job well done        :notworthy: