Dynaverse.net
SFC OP => Orion Pirates Patrol Battles Arena => Topic started by: KHH Jakle on February 25, 2005, 02:59:58 pm
-
Wanted to rehash some stuff that came up in the PBR v 4.0 thread.
The basic idea was to apply some hull requirements.
To get a BB hull, you need at least one CA hull ship
To get a DN or BCH hull, you need at lease one CL hull ship
ect ect.
I know some advocated using move cost as the determining factor.
I am going to do something here (the age of a BB and 2 police ships is over), I just haven't decided exactly what
-
To get a BB hull, you need at least one CA hull ship
To get a DN or BCH hull, you need at lease one CL hull ship
ect ect.
All this does is penalize races with expensive ships. I don't see how that is fair. Do carriers follow this OOB too or are they exempt?
-
I would rather see all BB ships elliminated.
I would rather see a limit on types of DN ships deemed usable(say DNE, DNL, DNH types only or some such, example only), or even if teams think this would be ok, just elliminate all DN class ships.
Make it so that if a DN is taken, the 2 wingships must be heavies(unless DN class is removed, then this one would be not here)
If a Heavy is taken as biggest, 1 wing must be light, the other can be light or heavy
IF a Light is the big ship, the wings can be lights or frigs
This sort of line of ship selection would allow a little room, while trying to get the hulls combined to be aproximately the same size or style, within reason.
These are just ideas, your comments are welcome. (remember if implimented it would only affect next cycle, and can be changed if needed for the following cycles)
-
The basic idea was to apply some hull requirements.
To get a BB hull, you need at least one CA hull ship
To get a DN or BCH hull, you need at lease one CL hull ship
ect ect.
I know some advocated using move cost as the determining factor.
I will go along with what Jackle suggested above. Seems reasonable.
I would advocate using move cost as a determining factor.
But eliminating BB's and/or DN's is too drastic. And I do not support that change.
-
To many new rules are just going to drive people away. Stick with the bare minimun of what is necessary and leave it that.
-
To many new rules are just going to drive people away. Stick with the bare minimun of what is necessary and leave it that.
I agree. PBR is hard enough for a lot of foks to follow now. Let's fix the PPD nonsense and then leave it alone.
-
This rule is unnecessary.
-
So everybody's ok with the BB and 2 Police ships as well as the Command Frigate being the command ship for 2 heavy cruisers...?
-
Lets not get confused with further restrictions as i dont think they r mandatory.
Just change the ppd rule as Corbo insistently suggesting "PERIOD" ;D and make some kind of restriction to Hydran ship combos as f.ex in late era they bring 24hornet3 which is complet nonsense.After all as some people claims the PBR rules should limit the cheese.
-
So everybody's ok with the BB and 2 Police ships as well as the Command Frigate being the command ship for 2 heavy cruisers...?
I'm not sure that we are OK with that as a concept. I think everyone agrees that it is kind of silly, but the rule you propose doesn't fix the problem across the board and should be re-thought or re-worked to reflect that this is a league not Random Space Battles in SFB and that we need a fair and competitive environment as well as a dose of "reality". The problem with true PBR is that it is not meant to be a fair playing field for all. If we are going to use it for a league we need to make some adjustments for that arena of play over a "wartime" arena of play.
This is why I pushed so hard for the Carrier/PF Tender/Escort thing. I still think PF Tenders should be considered Carriers for our purposes. If all races had both fighters and PF's your rule would be fair, but since they don't it can't be. Even the PF rules in themselves are lopsided as two of the races can field 8 PF's with no penalty and one can only field 6 because you only half fixed the problem by limiting Tenders with a Command rating as filling two slots. This completely ignores other ways to field multiple PF's so the problem still exists.
-
So everybody's ok with the BB and 2 Police ships as well as the Command Frigate being the command ship for 2 heavy cruisers...?
Fine with me.
-
"This is why I pushed so hard for the Carrier/PF Tender/Escort thing. I still think PF Tenders should be considered Carriers for our purposes. If all races had both fighters and PF's your rule would be fair, but since they don't it can't be. Even the PF rules in themselves are lopsided as two of the races can field 8 PF's with no penalty and one can only field 6 because you only half fixed the problem by limiting Tenders with a Command rating as filling two slots. This completely ignores other ways to field multiple PF's so the problem still exists."
This may be true, but when was the last time any fleet went against 8 or even 6 PF? I have flown in all the seasons of GZ and here, and not once, even before PBR, did we fly vs PFs. I would love to know if any fleets have ever flown at all vs PFs, and if so, how many times. I think that most people have realised that when flying were the BPV is equal for both sides, that the costs of the PFs are too high to warrant using them, therefore this part of the game is rarely if ever used. This is in spite of the fact that the rules for PFs stands as it is. If it were to be restricted further, well, it would not affect anyone because no one uses them in the first place.
As for the idea of 1 BB and 2 POL, well, it would never be a wartime combo, but this is a game. I would like to see ship class combos, but I do realize that it adds more rules to the game which could complicate things at times, so with this in mind, I am ok with the possibility of a BB and 2 POL or the Command Frigate for 2 heavy cruisers. Think of it, I would rather face a Frigate command and 2 CA than to face say a BCH command, a CA and a Frigate.
As far as Hydrans bringing 24 fighters into a game in late era, well, that can only happen if the bpv is high, and it is in late era, and they decide to. Does it seem fair to have to face 24 Hornet III, not really. Should they be penalized for being able to do this? I personally dont think so as this will be happening for how many games in the whole season? There are currently 4 games in the entie season that are late era over 600. Considering that almost all, well actually only 1 fleet, is Hydran, and that Hydrans are almost mute without fighters, I don't see why they should be restricted even more than other fleets.
As per most of the rules as they stand, I dont think there are any real issues, other than perhaps the PPD thing. It is unfortunate that we could not say: "there will be no ISC race next cycle, you must choose something else"... If we did that I know we would lose some pilots. Only reason I would think of elliminating ISC race, is that any fleet who as ever flown ISC race has not lost a match yet this season, and in 3 previous seasons, only lost due to not showing up. ISC race has won the campionship everytime too. I am not taking away from the pilots who fly ISC race as they are great pilots, I would only think to do this to give some other races a fairer chance at winning overall.
-
With all due respect Dfly, just because no one uses it doesn't mean its not a good strategy. In this cycle I have seen BPV's that make it possible to field mass weaponry that if played correctly is a real problem for anything except a Carrier group and it only requires one PF Tender to do it with all the casual carriers out there now. I know I would consider those configs based on terrain and who I was fighting if I flew those races. You can't tell me that 24 PH-1's aren't useful? And that's just the "light" weaponry! ;D
-
:skeptic:
oh f.. it
-
Point of Clarification -
what I put as the 'rule' at the start of this thread was just an example. I didn't intend for that to represent the final product.
It can be more detailed or less, more strict or less - whatever. Give me some examples.
I think something needs to be done to correct 2 pols + BB and the Command Frigate + 2xCA. I am hoping one of you clever people will spout off with some neat way of doing that.
-
I think something needs to be done to correct 2 pols + BB and the Command Frigate + 2xCA. I am hoping one of you clever people will spout off with some neat way of doing that.
I agree, but I think you over-estimate people's ability to comprehend complicated rules.
-
Not anymore I don't.
I am relying on you foks to keep the rules synthesized to easier to understand forms.
-
How about this:
Command ship CANNOT be the smallest vessel
Ships must be within egual to or one category of each other. ie: 1 frig + 1 light + 1 heavy is the maximum stretch.
(similarly 1 light + 1 heavy + 1 dread is max stretch).
-
How about this:
Command ship CANNOT be the smallest vessel
Ships must be within egual to or one category of each other. ie: 1 frig + 1 light + 1 heavy is the maximum stretch.
(similarly 1 light + 1 heavy + 1 dread is max stretch).
This still penalizes races with expensive ships. There are CL's out there that cost more than some CC's.
-
I am sorry but I dont see how this penalizes the expensive races. Please explain so I can understand that part. I am not stating that they must take 1 of each category, only that if you take a heavy, you cannot take 2 frigates. you could take 2 heavy and a light, 1 heavy and 2 lights, 2 heavies and a dread, 1 frig and 2 lights, 2 frig and 1 light, 3 frigs, 3 lights, 3 heavies. I am pretty sure with these total combos, any fleet would be able to find ships that will work just fine. Besides if certain type hulls are too expensive for some fleets at low bpv, then dont take them. I can only think that you are talking about the ISC race, as the heavy hulls are more expensive than other races, same for their other hulls. However, even without any rule change, those hulls are still more expensive than other fleet hulls.
If I seem to be missing the point Corbo, please let me know.
-
How about this:
Command ship CANNOT be the smallest vessel
Ships must be within egual to or one category of each other. ie: 1 frig + 1 light + 1 heavy is the maximum stretch.
(similarly 1 light + 1 heavy + 1 dread is max stretch).
This is horribly and unnecessarily complicated.
People are having trouble adhering to PBR as it is. Our last match we had to relaunch one game because the other team was in violation, and it wasn't the first time we've seen this.
Can we PLEASE leave it alone?
-
How about this:
Command ship CANNOT be the smallest vessel
Ships must be within egual to or one category of each other. ie: 1 frig + 1 light + 1 heavy is the maximum stretch.
(similarly 1 light + 1 heavy + 1 dread is max stretch).
This is horribly and unnecessarily complicated.
People are having trouble adhering to PBR as it is. Our last match we had to relaunch one game because the other team was in violation, and it wasn't the first time we've seen this.
Can we PLEASE leave it alone?
Agreed.
And corb is right, a method that uses "Hull" classification can not be fairly applied as there is no consistancy across races as to what falls into what category. BPV limits that. If there is a very particular issue with BBs being escorted by POLs then just create a rule to restrict that, not some complicated unnessary rule that has unintended consequences for races whose particular classifications of certian hulls fall into a higher BPV range.
-
How about this:
Command ship CANNOT be the smallest vessel
Ships must be within egual to or one category of each other. ie: 1 frig + 1 light + 1 heavy is the maximum stretch.
(similarly 1 light + 1 heavy + 1 dread is max stretch).
This is horribly and unnecessarily complicated.
People are having trouble adhering to PBR as it is. Our last match we had to relaunch one game because the other team was in violation, and it wasn't the first time we've seen this.
Can we PLEASE leave it alone?
Agreed.
And corb is right, a method that uses "Hull" classification can not be fairly applied as there is no consistancy across races as to what falls into what category. BPV limits that. If there is a very particular issue with BBs being escorted by POLs then just create a rule to restrict that, not some complicated unnessary rule that has unintended consequences for races whose particular classifications of certian hulls fall into a higher BPV range.
Fine - but what would that rule look like?
-
How about this:
Command ship CANNOT be the smallest vessel
Ships must be within egual to or one category of each other. ie: 1 frig + 1 light + 1 heavy is the maximum stretch.
(similarly 1 light + 1 heavy + 1 dread is max stretch).
This is horribly and unnecessarily complicated.
People are having trouble adhering to PBR as it is. Our last match we had to relaunch one game because the other team was in violation, and it wasn't the first time we've seen this.
Can we PLEASE leave it alone?
Agreed.
And corb is right, a method that uses "Hull" classification can not be fairly applied as there is no consistancy across races as to what falls into what category. BPV limits that. If there is a very particular issue with BBs being escorted by POLs then just create a rule to restrict that, not some complicated unnessary rule that has unintended consequences for races whose particular classifications of certian hulls fall into a higher BPV range.
Fine - but what would that rule look like?
A BB must be escorted by at least one .67 move cost ship or higher. Or some such.
-
I must say that I feel no rule is needed for a league set up and this kind of condition. I don't want OOB in my competition arena other than ships limited by function like we have now. That type of limitation covers all BPV's and hull sizes and is more impartial. Limiting by hull size as well is going too far IMO. Each race should feel that they can compete at any BPV given and if that means unortodox strategy then I say go for it. If we do take this tact I'll ask again - Are Carrier groups under this limitation as well?
-
I believe any combination of ships IAW the current PBR matrix has worked for 3 or 4 cycles why an issue now? I do not see why this no longer acceptable.
Warships of todays navies still get escorted by police boats or smaller in to ports to keep sail boats and pleasure craft out of the way. Perhaps for those that are having trouble visualizing a BB and two Pol ships could imagine that this is the time when the enemy attacks and hence one BB and two Pol ships would find them selves in action together.
Well, all fine and good you say if the escort was to planet or starbase. Another encouter I offer for the imagination challenged people of the league could be that the police ships could be transporting parts or conducting a crew transfer to the BB in open space before the BB heads out to join her task force, during the transfer the enemy engages.
-
I tend to agree, no rule is really needed here at all.
-
Wanted to rehash some stuff that came up in the PBR v 4.0 thread.
The basic idea was to apply some hull requirements.
To get a BB hull, you need at least one CA hull ship
To get a DN or BCH hull, you need at lease one CL hull ship
ect ect.
I know some advocated using move cost as the determining factor.
I am going to do something here (the age of a BB and 2 police ships is over), I just haven't decided exactly what
Well BBs are fairly uncommon. Why not get a good set of BB escort ships together or use Command Supports as BB escorts?
eg. I want to take a BB, I must also take a Command Support Ship.
My sentiments are that this would make good sense. Also I agree that you wouldn't see Frigates as the only escorts for a BB.
I could concoct a scenario where it may happen, however if all this were real, I would expect to see a Command Support ship escorting a BB with another ship in a group of only 3.
I also don't see the need for Carrier escorts for a BBV. I would expect to see a Command support ship there as well.
-
How about this:
Command ship CANNOT be the smallest vessel
Ships must be within egual to or one category of each other. ie: 1 frig + 1 light + 1 heavy is the maximum stretch.
(similarly 1 light + 1 heavy + 1 dread is max stretch).
This is horribly and unnecessarily complicated.
People are having trouble adhering to PBR as it is. Our last match we had to relaunch one game because the other team was in violation, and it wasn't the first time we've seen this.
Can we PLEASE leave it alone?
Agreed.
And corb is right, a method that uses "Hull" classification can not be fairly applied as there is no consistancy across races as to what falls into what category. BPV limits that. If there is a very particular issue with BBs being escorted by POLs then just create a rule to restrict that, not some complicated unnessary rule that has unintended consequences for races whose particular classifications of certian hulls fall into a higher BPV range.
Fine - but what would that rule look like?
A BB must be escorted by at least one .67 move cost ship or higher. Or some such.
I put that idea out to show that we dont need any new ruling on what we already have. As soon as we add an new rule, we start to complicate things a bit further. If a fleet uses a BB and 2 frigs, there is a very good chance you will be able to counter with a BB and 2 frigs too, should you choose. AS per Greywolf's idea, perhaps we can expand a little on it with this idea. Any DN or bigger must have a combat support in it's group.
-
I tend to agree, no rule is really needed here at all.
ok - this one is closed then
-
I hate to bring this up again, but I feel compelled to present this a different way and see if I get a different response.
How about if the standard was that if a Command Variant is taken, no other ship in the squadron can be of a larger hull size. Hull Size being the 4 buckets in Space Dock: Frigate, Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, Dreadnought.
This ignores the other end, where a BB could be winged with 2 POL's (which while silly is not forbidden by S8). If does however prevent, say, a F5C and 2x D5 (which is implicitely forbidden by S8)
This is actually already the case for Carrier Groups (at least in v 4.2 that on the Rules Link). You can't take a F-FFV and make both the escorts NAC's.
-
If does however prevent, say, a F5C and 2x D5 (which is implicitely forbidden by S8)
I'd want to see the actual wording in S8 before agreeing to this. Could you post that section of the rules here?
-
I did say implicitely....which means it might just be how I am inferring it. Here's the whole section pertaining to Command Variants, but pay particular attention to S8.362 and S8.367:
S8.36) LEADERS, COMMAND SHIPS: Leader variants (CWL, DWL, CC, DDL, etc.) are designed to lead squadrons of similar ships; there will never be a squadron consisting entirely of leader variants because this would mean that other squadrons had no leaders. See (S8.64), which prohibits "allied squadrons". See exception (S8.48).
(S8.361) A second (third, fourth, etc.) leader ship of any given type cannot be included unless all other such leaders are accompanied by two "combat variants" of the same basic hull type. For example, you may have one D5L if you wish, but if you want two of them, there must be two other D5s in the fleet (following the first D5L).
NCAs are CAs (and can be freely mixed with CAs in squadrons led by CCs), not leader versions of CWs. CCHs are CCs, not leader versions of CCs.
CLs and CWs can be mixed in squadrons.
DDs and DWs can be mixed in squadrons.
Fast Cruisers are considered to be cruisers of the equivalent type and can fill out CA squadrons.
Scouts, Commando ships, Minesweepers, Escort, Survey ships, Tugs/LTTs without battle or carrier pods, PFTs without heavy weapons, and other support ships are not "combat variants".
(S8.362) No leader ship can be included unless all larger leaders have their supporting ships. For example, an F5L cannot be included in a fleet with a D7C and a D5L unless the D7C is accompanied by two other D7/6 combat ships and the D5L is accompanied by two combat D5 hulls. The ISC, being under separate PPD limits (E11.17), is exempt from (S8.362).
(S8.363) Dreadnoughts are not "leader" ships; however, see (S8.331). Carrier groups (S8.31) are separate from the leader/led provisions of (S8.36); they lead their escorts. The fleet flagship is exempt from the leader/led provisions of (S8.36) but could lead a squadron; the Klingon force in (S8.362) could have a D7C as a flagship.
(S8.364) The Federation uses the "L" designator for plasma-armed ships. These are not "leaders" within the context of this rule.
(S8.365) The Kzinti Super Space Control Ship (R5.24) and any similar units published in future simultaneously counts against the limits of PFTs, carriers, and size class 2 ships.
(S8.366) Jindarian asteroid ships may serve as fleet flagships but are otherwise not included in the "squadron" organization concept.
(S8.367) A standard (non-leader) warship can lead a squadron including standard (non-leader) versions of the next smaller class. For example:
FFs (but not FFLs) can lead police squadrons.
DDs or DWs (but not DDLs or DWLs) can lead Frigate Squadrons.
CL/CWs (but not leader versions thereof) can lead DD/DW squadrons.
CA/NCAs (but not CCs or CCHs) can lead CW/CL squadrons.
(S8.368) Hydran fusion and hellbore ships can be mixed in squadrons within a given class. A war cruiser squadron could include a Horseman, Traveler, Mongol, and/or Tartar. Similarly, the Romulans can mix squadrons of KR, Hawk, and Eagle series ships.
-
A more literal and rigid interpretation of the above rules would be so say that you cannot take a Leader Variant unless it is commanding a squadron of it's combat variants, ie: CC for 2xCA, or D7C for 2xD7/6.
Additionally, mixed squadrons (say 2 destroyers and a Light cruiser hull) are valid but the Light Cruiser couldn't be a leader variant since they are reserved for Light Cruiser Squadrons.
I am perfectly fine with that - as it seems like it increases the likelihood of vanilla ship-o-the-line matches - but I am not advocating that. If nothing else, it would require a serious revamping of the Matrix reference system and I don't have the time or inclination to do that. At least not anytime soon.
-
The S8 rules do not seem to support what you are proposing. Indeed, given ADB's penchant for making explicit rules for every possible contingency the omission of a rule specifically requiring the command ship to be largest seems noteworthy.
I have no problem with an F5L and 2 D7's as a legit squadron. Correct me if I am wrong Jakle but your objection seems to be that the F5L should not be the command ship in this squadron. To this I agree. Logically one of the D7's would fill that role, since they have a command rating of 8 (vice 5 for the F5L). This however should not (and does not according to the S8 rules) preclude a smaller command ship from taking a spot on the battle line.
-
And yet look at what S8 does explicitely say:
"Leader variants (CWL, DWL, CC, DDL, etc.) are designed to lead squadrons of similar ships". Implies that if you are going to have a Leader Variant, the 2 other ships should technically be of the same hull class.
"there will never be a squadron consisting entirely of leader variants because this would mean that other squadrons had no leader". So, coming the other way, this implies that if you sub'd in a F5L with to D7's, you were depriving some theoretical F5 squadron of it's leader.
"...leader ship of any given type cannot be included unless all other such leaders are accompanied by two "combat variants" of the same basic hull type" If you look at it inversely, this Implies that before you add in the F5L (to continue an earlier example), the D6/7's should have a D7C in place to lead them.
"No leader ship can be included unless all larger leaders have their supporting ships." Again, looking at it inversely, you can't add an smaller class leader when you have larger Combat Variants operating without their appropriate leader.
"A standard (non-leader) warship can lead a squadron including standard (non-leader) versions of the next smaller class" By making this allowance, this strengthens the concept that the employment of Leader Variants is strictly controlled.
I concede that all of the above is how I interpret it. I personally think a simple, clear cut addendum that says "your command variant must be the largest or of equal hull size as the rest of the formation" is a pretty loose interpretation of S8....at least my interpretation at any rate.
Any opposition to this (in absence of a counter balance of support) will dissuade me from pursuing this. I do, however, enjoy the debate. :)
-
"No leader ship can be included unless all larger leaders have their supporting ships."
What is most significant is what this does not say. If ADB intended what you are suggesting they could have made a much simpler rule: "No leader ship can be included unless it has its supporting ships".
The intent of the rule always seemed clear to me. They're outlawing the cheesy non-historical D7L D5L F5L squadron. The D7 D7 F5L is certainly not cheesy, and historically a lot more likely than the leader-only group.
-
IMO, the way the rules are stated, You may have a D7C with 2 D7/D6 type hulls. You can have 1 or 2 D7/D6 hulls with a D5 hull, of which none are leaders. One of the D7/D6 would be considered the leader as per (S8.367) . It does not clearly state that you cant have a D5L lead 2 D7/D6 type ships, but really, the way it is ruled, I believe you cannot as it clearly states that a larger hull may be considered the command ship of the combination of say 2 D7/D6 with 1 D5 hull, none of which are actual command ships. (S8.367) A standard (non-leader) warship can lead a squadron including standard (non-leader) versions of the next smaller class.
No where does it state you can take the D5L with 2 D7/D6 hulls.
This would really start to restrict the ship choices but make much more sense to the actual squadron combinations that are supposed to be flying together.
I have not decided yet wether this is better or worse, or if I would be for or against the idea. Just trying to maybe help clarify and understand better. :)
-
Ultimately, it would appear 762 is correct.
I posted on the SFB board, and while I didn't get an official response, another player chimed in that he didn't think my ex (a F5L x 2D7) would be illegal.
One of the D7's would be the Command ship. The F5L would simply be a ship under it's command.
What is clearly prohibited is to say make one of those D7's a D7C and still take the F5L. You couldn't add an F5L unless the D7C had two D7/6 hulls already, and since that get's us into 4 ship formations, it's not applicable - and the current Command rule is sufficient.
Sorry for bringing it back up - this sucker's closed.
-
It was a healthy discussion. :)