Slave Girls Mod Corrections

[FPF-DieHard]

Tonight was fun yet in conclusive as we never got enough guys to do 2v2 or 3v3 (biatches!! Is "Blade: the Series" that compelling?).  It all seems like Hexx and my ideas for fleeting will work but we gotta test it.

Idea for Lyran Escorts:  Replace the Phaser 2s with 2 PH-3 each.  Comments please.

Since escorts can only Fly with Carriers, is the G-rack nerfing still needed?  I'm thinking maybe, need other opinions.

Here is what we are thinking for Carrier CnC:   

2-Ship Fleet:   Carriers MUST be escorted by an Escort of that same race
3-Ship Fleet:  First wing MUST be and Escort of the same race, second wing can be either and Escort of an allied races, and Escort of the same race, or a LINE (non-command) ship of the same races

[Lieutenant_Q]

Sorry, someone unexpectedly came over tonight... 

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Um... yeah, right...

By that comment, I can tell you haven't piloted a Hydran against any Lyrans with PF's.....

Ya, running from Ph1 armed PF's isnt fun. But consider range 30 Proxies from Fed PF's. Oh wait, you're allied to the Feds, so nm. 

You got a problem with them, the guy to talk to is DH.  Maybe we should put a Fusion cannon on board instead of the Photons....

DH, how did the 2 ph3's work?  Or did you not have time to test them tonight?

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Oh, and Dizzy, your deflecting the comment from Lyran vs Hydran to Fed's vs Lyran doesn't address the point that Lyran PF's usually pwn hydran fighters.

When a BCH (L-BCHT) can regularly pwn a CVA (H-ID), something is wrong.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Since escorts can only Fly with Carriers, is the G-rack nerfing still needed?  I'm thinking maybe, need other opinions.

Here is what we are thinking for Carrier CnC:   

2-Ship Fleet:   Carriers MUST be escorted by an Escort of that same race
3-Ship Fleet:  First wing MUST be and Escort of the same race, second wing can be either and Escort of an allied races, and Escort of the same race, or a LINE (non-command) ship of the same races

*sigh* Bet you are tired of hearing this... but if you move back to G racks, the Hydrans are flucked against droners...  not so much with the droners vs droners...

I like the carrier escort rules as you described above...

[Hexx]

If (and only if) escorts are restricted to flying only with the carriers then I'd think the G racks can be restored.
Depending (of course) on what fleeting restrictions are placed on DN's.

[Dizzy]

It's getting too restrictive guys. I think the fun of it all is being sucked away. I'd do a poll on what others think of how u cant fly this or that. You already know how I'd vote. Not saying your ideas arnt good, I'm willing to try it, but doing it for a serious server, nah.

When a BCH (L-BCHT) can regularly pwn a CVA (H-ID), something is wrong.

Bear, where are you getting your pissing contest ideas? What makes you think the ID should take down a BCHT? I'd really like to know.

I dont think you know how to utilize the ID. It's a good ship for use in certain situations, not as a big ship whipping stick. The ID isnt the best one on one PvP DN and isnt supposed to be used as such. I bet it'd get pwnd by other BCHT's too, mb even some BCV's. I think the C7T could take it down regularly as well. I'd be willing to demonstrate.

There is nothing wrong with it and everything wrong with your ideas of how it's matched up. You are comparing apples and oranges and that is never a good way to balance things. Basing the presmise that a ship can regularly own another by the basis of one on one matchups with a mismatched set of ships with totally different mission goals is just dumb.

[FPF-DieHard]

Since escorts can only Fly with Carriers, is the G-rack nerfing still needed?  I'm thinking maybe, need other opinions.

Here is what we are thinking for Carrier CnC:   

2-Ship Fleet:   Carriers MUST be escorted by an Escort of that same race
3-Ship Fleet:  First wing MUST be and Escort of the same race, second wing can be either and Escort of an allied races, and Escort of the same race, or a LINE (non-command) ship of the same races

*sigh* Bet you are tired of hearing this... but if you move back to G racks, the Hydrans are flucked against droners...  not so much with the droners vs droners...

I like the carrier escort rules as you described above...

Your point is very valid and you are probrably right.   Now show up tonight to test this stuff in fleets 

[Hexx]

It's getting too restrictive guys. I think the fun of it all is being sucked away. I'd do a poll on what others think of how u cant fly this or that. You already know how I'd vote. Not saying your ideas arnt good, I'm willing to try it, but doing it for a serious server, nah.

??
Don't really think it's getting to restrictive, as all that has been suggested deals with carriers (which no one really flies) and escorts (again which no one really flies)
~ Not saying we won't go to far eventually, but claiming this is "too restrictive" is as dumb as t00ls suggestions that every other fight Hydrans are in involves waves of drone fighters
used against them.

[FPF-DieHard]

The L-BCHT does NOT pwn the H-ID with the SGO mod.  That was on SS2 with OP+ and no fighter/PF CnC.  I'd find it very hard to believe a BCHT with 6 PF can beat an H-ID with 24 fighters.

Please keep your arguements relevant to the modern setup.

The new Overmind should be a more than Capable BCV so the Hydran have little to complain about in this ship-class

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

It's getting too restrictive guys. I think the fun of it all is being sucked away. I'd do a poll on what others think of how u cant fly this or that. You already know how I'd vote. Not saying your ideas arnt good, I'm willing to try it, but doing it for a serious server, nah.

When a BCH (L-BCHT) can regularly pwn a CVA (H-ID), something is wrong.

Bear, where are you getting your pissing contest ideas? What makes you think the ID should take down a BCHT? I'd really like to know.

I dont think you know how to utilize the ID. It's a good ship for use in certain situations, not as a big ship whipping stick. The ID isnt the best one on one PvP DN and isnt supposed to be used as such. I bet it'd get pwnd by other BCHT's too, mb even some BCV's. I think the C7T could take it down regularly as well. I'd be willing to demonstrate.

There is nothing wrong with it and everything wrong with your ideas of how it's matched up. You are comparing apples and oranges and that is never a good way to balance things. Basing the presmise that a ship can regularly own another by the basis of one on one matchups with a mismatched set of ships with totally different mission goals is just dumb.

Oh, that is right... I forgot you are the master... 

The only thing you are right about is that it is APPLES and ORANGES.  DN sized CVA's should not be getting beat by BC sized ships even if they are PF tenders.

Yet this has happened regularly on the Dynaverse. Why?

Mainly the fighter/pf AI interaction, but we also have the problem of fighters not firing HW's (this happens with both Hydran & droner fighters).

This leaves an undergunned DN vs an overgunned BCH.

DH is correct that things are better now (except for the damnable fighter AI), but you want to give the Lyran PF's MORE firepower to upset the balance again?

[Dizzy]

Ya, Lyran PF's suck and need that Ph1.

It has 56 power? It's a slow ugly ship totally dependent on it's fighters. BCHT's would eat it alive in a fast run and gun game where the power starved ID cant keep up.

Oops, wait it has 58 power. That aint that bad. Hrmmm, You should have plenty of time to shoot up the back shield of the Lyran b4 u run outtta fighters. I reassessed my matchup and must say that the ID has the edge. I'll be happy to demonstrate and Ph1's wouldnt matter one way or the other. The main problem with the LBCHT vs ID matchup isnt the ftr or PF's, its the insane powercurve on the Lyr BC. It lets it get away with murder.

And DH, I like the idea of giving the Lyran escorts 2x Ph3's for each Ph2 due to how the game will fire the Ph2 offensively leaving it with no PD. It's also gain a tad bit of power conservation too. I like it.

[FPF-DieHard]

Oops, wait it has 58 power. That aint that bad. Hrmmm, You should have plenty of time to shoot up the back shield of the Lyran b4 u run outtta fighters. I reassessed my matchup and must say that the ID has the edge. I'll be happy to demonstrate and Ph1's wouldnt matter one way or the other. The main problem with the LBCHT vs ID matchup isnt the ftr or PF's, its the insane powercurve on the Lyr BC. It lets it get away with murder.

I think the  H-OM with 12 Fighters and 6 Heavies Should be able to Handle an L-BCHT with 6 PFs.

Question about Full PF-tenders, should they be considered CARRIERS for the purpose of the Escort rule?   I don't see and L-BCHT being so dominating if it is forced to with with an L-CWEF.

Hexx is right, fleeting rules are the holy-grail 

[762_XC]

OF COURSE full tenders have to be considered true carriers. Esp if you are going to give them 6 PF's.

[Hexx]

As much as it pains me I agree with the tool.
Full tenders should be considered carriers.

[FPF-DieHard]

OF COURSE full tenders have to be considered true carriers. Esp if you are going to give them 6 PF's.

What was the actual SFB/F&E rule?

[FPF-DieHard]

We actually had 4 show up tonight!!!!!!! 

F-BCV/F-NAC (me and Risky) versus K-C7V/K-AD5 (Dax and Lepton) = Victorous Feds, can go either was, but didn't seem too off.

F-BCV/F-NAC (Risky and Lepton) versus K-C7f/K-DWLf (Me and Dax) = Victorious Klinks.  I did not feel out-gunned at all in the Klink Squad.  Still seems like it could go either way.

Didn't get trhough too much, but it was a nice start

[762_XC]

OF COURSE full tenders have to be considered true carriers. Esp if you are going to give them 6 PF's.

What was the actual SFB/F&E rule?

F&E rule was that tenders could go solo, but this made them PRIME targets for directed damage. You can't get a cheap kill on a carrier like you can on a PFT.

Needless to say that whole concept is lost in translation.

[Bartok]

you CAN put 2 standard PF on a PF leader.   I do not think this is a good idea though.

Greetings DieHard et. al. -

Been trying to follow this thread, though, i've been remiss on the last several days of posts.  Also sorry i haven't involved myself in playtesting, you Guys are all balancing KINGS - honestly, I don't have enough of a frame of reference nor expertise (SFB/F&E) to offer any real quality input.

I'm interested in these solutions/workarounds you've accomplished for increasing Pf's and fighters.  Particularly Pf's that carry a Pf? - You mention that a PF Leader can carry 2 standard PF's - I'm assuming this is a convention you're creating "artificially" to achieve the balancing you seek.  Is there any real limit here? i.e. couldn't you put 4 pf's on a PF (if you wanted to create a really stinky slice of stilton ).  And then, in theory have a max of 16 pfs'?  on a full tender?

Also - the solutions for giving the equiv. of 40 fighters is to merely "double" the strength/damage of a standard fighter, i.e. there actually is NO WAY to increase the REAL squad size ?? (you'll only ever have 6 little models/squadron in game)

I really appreciate the depth and breadth of consideration you guys bring to the issues you tackle.  I'm sorry I didn't have a chance to play SFB back in the day with y'all (i used to like little lead figures;)

Also - so as to round out my noob stance could someone clarify the terms/acronyms for me?:

PBR
attrition units
directed damage

Cheers and a hearty <S> to Y'all

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

PBR
attrition units
directed damage

Patrol Battle Rules

Attrition units are fighters and pf's.

Directed Damage is something from Federation & Empires.  Best let t00l describe that one.

[Hexx]

~ You could (in theory) I believe have 4 PF's that each carry 4 PF's that each carry 4PF's etc etc.
Full tenders (SFB wise) carried 6 PF's (a full squadron) so that's what we use.
~ There is no way to increase squadron size for fighters beyond 6. (That I'm aware of) It's hardcoded into the game iirc.
Even at 6 there's issues with how they behave. (the basic one being all 6 fighters do not fire)

~PBR is Patrol Battle Rules, some system ADB (I believe) came up with to "balance" randomnly created scenarios
so people weren't using 3 Command cruisers etc.
~Attrition units are units that are used through attrition (   ) Basically it's from a SFB use where the fighters and PF's were far easier to build/crew than new ships would be. 6 PFs were (more or less) a match for a small ship. And could be produced and crrewed for a fraction of the cost. The concept itself doesn't apply to our games, but the term refers to the aforementioned fighters and/or PF's.
~Directed damage is a  F&E term basically (as I understand it) has one fleet use it's abstracted firepower to shoot at one ship in anotehr fleet rather than just firing. Has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to OP.

[Dizzy]

Bartok, I created a base once that dropped two Fighterbays... I used modded FRD's for that. Inside FRD 1, there were 16 ftrs. Insider FRD2 there were 4 PF's. Since each ship can carry 4 FRD Ftr bays, I could have any combination, really. 12 PF's and 16 ftrs... 4 PF's and 48 ftrs, or half and half. The FRD's themselves can carry 4 more FRD's but that many units in the game can crash the game engine. And the lag is horrible.

[Bartok]

Wow Guys - Bearslayer, Hexx - Dizzy

ThanX for all your responses - Dizz, sorry i'm acronym challenged FRD?

[Capt Jeff]

FRD= Fleet Repair Dock     

[Julin Eurthyr]

If it's decided to go appropriate carrier escorts for carrier fleets (and escorts can only run while escorting...)

Per SFB, the escorts are designed with small "fighter bays", in order to assist the main carrier in "servicing" the fighters.  Perhaps, for SFC, if we took and made these full "fighter bays", complete with a fighter compliment, we can get the 40+ fighters for the ID/IC (4x4 on Iron, 3x4 (additional 1x4 if hydran escorts are also allocated fighters) on 2 wingmen = 16 + 12 +12 = 40),  24 packs for the CVAs, etc., by putting the excess fighters on the escorts:

F-CVA group:  CVA gets 16.  NEA gets 2 x 2 or 1 x 4 (20 in fleet), DEA same.  24 fighters.  CVA carries 3x flights F14, rest of fighters the A10 model.

While this does make solo escorts a bit more powerful, hopefully they won't be abused (through a proper rule... ) and it gives full SFB squadrons.  To be "fair" to the PF races, they want a 6 pk of PFs on the table, they need a casual tender to "escort" the true PF tender... (or play a true Rommie Chickenhawk squad  )

[FPF-DieHard]

While this does make solo escorts a bit more powerful, hopefully they won't be abused (through a proper rule... ) and it gives full SFB squadrons.  To be "fair" to the PF races, they want a 6 pk of PFs on the table, they need a casual tender to "escort" the true PF tender... (or play a true Rommie Chickenhawk squad  )

If we're doing this, ther will be NO solo escorts

If anyone is interested in Real Space Control ships, it can be done in a fleet by puttin geither the fighter or the PFs on an Escort and force them to fly together.  Not sure if this is a good idea for D2, better prhaps for a campaign if somebody ever puts one together.

[FPF-DieHard]

Hexx, I'm considering phaser 1s for the Lyrans but if they get the better phasers, they are going to get the shield reduction the other races get.

Is it worth it?

[Dizzy]

Dh, the Lyrans have the worst PF's in the game. Why give them a choice that makes them suck either way? Lyr PF's are a joke.

[762_XC]

No they aren't. Just because they don't have massive crunch like plasma PF's does not mean they suck. Learn some tactics besides running someone down with a tractor up Dizzy. 

[FPF-DieHard]

Both you boners play nice, but you are both right.

Lyran PFs do suck by themselves, but flown correctly like the way Firesoul used to the are absolutely devestating.