Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
Starfire Rules / Re: New Engine Idea
« Last post by Paul M on April 21, 2021, 01:04:56 AM »
Quote from: ZimRathbone on April 19, 2021, 10:23:55 PM

I was never very happy with the hard limits on WP, so we had a  house rule thst the size was the maximum volume of ships that could pass per impulse, and that ships bigger than the WP could still transit but took multiple impulses to do so.  Ships greater than the WP size could transit WP Size hull spaces in the 1st impulse and 50% of WP HS in subsequent impulses eg a 200HS SM trying to transit a siz 100WP would take 3 impulses to transit (100+50+50). All transits had to complete within a single turn.  We didn't have a lot of testing of this though as it was  quite rare to build SDs and above since relatively few campaigns lasted long enough.

Looking at your options I would tend to go with the second option (AM-like ability) as it doesnt add another engine type and therefore need to cope with rules regarding interactions with other engine types and systems, and the ability is only really useful in the assault, so making it a device would only add a HTK, the loss  of the system would not be significant to the ongoing battle if any.

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated.  I find the "hard limits" not really so "hard" as most of the time it is of no matter if the WP is 200, 300, 400, or 500...the only two sizes that are important are 100 and 180.  100 HS WP are 11% of them and 180 are a further 6%.   That is far too often...but I think changing the rules at this point for Starslayer and I isn't really an option...we need a tech solution.  I have to admit I think the option of an engine modifier system is the better one.  It stops having to have a Ix engine or whatever or worse Ia1, Ia2, and Ia3.   What to call it though: "Drive Field Transit Compressor 1st Generation"  (DFTC1)....hmmm just (TC1) would work.  "Kay-Tell Transit Stacker"  might also be an option (KTTS)...

I think a lot more things in Starfire should be like that as the ships themselves are huge so its hard to understand why systems that amount to computing power more than hardware should be so massive.  What makes high tech small combatants not viable is mainly the lack of space for electronics, and clearly this was obvious as a fair amount of the higher tech electronics suddenly got a lot smaller.  But even BCs and BBs end up tight for space.  I suspect some crazy game balance-ing idea is behind it but I often wonder if these attempts do not generate far worse un-intended consequences then they solve issues.
62
Starfire Rules / Re: New Engine Idea
« Last post by ZimRathbone on April 19, 2021, 10:23:55 PM »
Quote from: Paul M on April 18, 2021, 09:56:38 AM
Starslayer and I have run into the 100 HS nightmare in our campaign, basically our average TL is now 9 and so you can deploy a fairly solid defence around any WP given time: BS4-6, small craft CAP, mine fields, IDEW and so forth.   But 100 HS WP restrict you to BBs as your largest assault ship.  Now we have home rules and such which make construction take a more reasonable time so no one can just shovel through BBs till the enemy collapses, or at least you could do that once only and need a long time to rebuild your WP assault force.

To solve this we are allowing Ic based battle rider carriers but still...the @ works far better with Jc engines were it is arriving at a distance to the WP...this is basically only a solution to allow SDs to move through WPs that they could not fit through normally.  I'm still dubious even a CVB battle rider carrier is really going to be able to bring more than 1 SD or ML through on racks and not have it blown off said racks.

I was thinking to make a new engine available TL8.  The engine would reduce the effective transit size of the ship mounting it (ala Galactic starfire) so that a SD can make it through the 100 HS WP but the first generation engine would only allow a transit speed of (max)-2 (so 3 SDs per turn).  The next engine at TL10 would reduce the effective transit size so a ML could transit a 100 HS warp point and allow transit speed of (max)-1 (4 SD or 3 ML per turn).  The last type at TL12 would allow a MT to transit a 100 or 180 HS warp point and allow a transit speed of (max)-0 (5 SD, 4 ML or 3 MTs per turn).  During transit turns they could not employ engine tuners and would need 1 turn to enter or leave transit mode.

The next option is to make this an ability like advanced manoeuvring.  So it is a zero HS engine modification you can buy for a cost increase to your engines.  You take a turn to turn it on and off.

The final option would be to make the is device like a 2nd gen engine tuner that you need to install on the ship.  It would then be active or not.  It could not be run at the same time as an engine tunner.

What do people think?  I'm more or less just trying to get some brainstorming on the subject.  I'm a lot dubious the battleriders will work out for assaults though that will give some strategic boost to races that till now have been blocked from even deploying SDs due to 100 HS WPs.

I was never very happy with the hard limits on WP, so we had a  house rule thst the size was the maximum volume of ships that could pass per impulse, and that ships bigger than the WP could still transit but took multiple impulses to do so.  Ships greater than the WP size could transit WP Size hull spaces in the 1st impulse and 50% of WP HS in subsequent impulses eg a 200HS SM trying to transit a siz 100WP would take 3 impulses to transit (100+50+50). All transits had to complete within a single turn.  We didn't have a lot of testing of this though as it was  quite rare to build SDs and above since relatively few campaigns lasted long enough.

Looking at your options I would tend to go with the second option (AM-like ability) as it doesnt add another engine type and therefore need to cope with rules regarding interactions with other engine types and systems, and the ability is only really useful in the assault, so making it a device would only add a HTK, the loss  of the system would not be significant to the ongoing battle if any.
63
Starfire Rules / New Engine Idea
« Last post by Paul M on April 18, 2021, 09:56:38 AM »
Starslayer and I have run into the 100 HS nightmare in our campaign, basically our average TL is now 9 and so you can deploy a fairly solid defence around any WP given time: BS4-6, small craft CAP, mine fields, IDEW and so forth.   But 100 HS WP restrict you to BBs as your largest assault ship.  Now we have home rules and such which make construction take a more reasonable time so no one can just shovel through BBs till the enemy collapses, or at least you could do that once only and need a long time to rebuild your WP assault force.

To solve this we are allowing Ic based battle rider carriers but still...the @ works far better with Jc engines were it is arriving at a distance to the WP...this is basically only a solution to allow SDs to move through WPs that they could not fit through normally.  I'm still dubious even a CVB battle rider carrier is really going to be able to bring more than 1 SD or ML through on racks and not have it blown off said racks.

I was thinking to make a new engine available TL8.  The engine would reduce the effective transit size of the ship mounting it (ala Galactic starfire) so that a SD can make it through the 100 HS WP but the first generation engine would only allow a transit speed of (max)-2 (so 3 SDs per turn).  The next engine at TL10 would reduce the effective transit size so a ML could transit a 100 HS warp point and allow transit speed of (max)-1 (4 SD or 3 ML per turn).  The last type at TL12 would allow a MT to transit a 100 or 180 HS warp point and allow a transit speed of (max)-0 (5 SD, 4 ML or 3 MTs per turn).  During transit turns they could not employ engine tuners and would need 1 turn to enter or leave transit mode.

The next option is to make this an ability like advanced manoeuvring.  So it is a zero HS engine modification you can buy for a cost increase to your engines.  You take a turn to turn it on and off.

The final option would be to make the is device like a 2nd gen engine tuner that you need to install on the ship.  It would then be active or not.  It could not be run at the same time as an engine tunner.

What do people think?  I'm more or less just trying to get some brainstorming on the subject.  I'm a lot dubious the battleriders will work out for assaults though that will give some strategic boost to races that till now have been blocked from even deploying SDs due to 100 HS WPs.
64
SA Questions / Re: gunboats
« Last post by Froggiest1982 on November 26, 2020, 10:08:03 PM »
Quote from: StarshipCactus on November 26, 2020, 07:27:02 PM
Quote from: froggiest1982 on November 26, 2020, 07:11:05 PM
Quote from: TrueZuluwiz on November 26, 2020, 04:11:38 PM
A question that has bothered me for a while: would it be worth the effort to arm gunboats with standard anti-mine missiles and send them through to clear minefields? I can see that it would be a fast way to clear mines, since a gunboat can carry 16 standard missiles, therefore 16 standard anti-mine missiles. A squadron of 6 gunboats would thus be able to fire 96 missiles. This would be a fast and cheap way to clear minefields, but I'm not sure it would be better than using missiles launched from warships.  The advantage would be to clear mines without risking your warships. Any thoughts or comments?

Sorry if I ask, but as far as I know mines are not implemented in C#, so I don't see the need of a minesweeper.

So, did you manage to get mines to function and or encountered any minefield?

Thanks

This is the Starfire section of the forum, not Aurora.

s**t, sorry mate, the update board can be confusing
65
SA Questions / Re: gunboats
« Last post by StarshipCactus on November 26, 2020, 07:27:02 PM »
Quote from: froggiest1982 on November 26, 2020, 07:11:05 PM
Quote from: TrueZuluwiz on November 26, 2020, 04:11:38 PM
A question that has bothered me for a while: would it be worth the effort to arm gunboats with standard anti-mine missiles and send them through to clear minefields? I can see that it would be a fast way to clear mines, since a gunboat can carry 16 standard missiles, therefore 16 standard anti-mine missiles. A squadron of 6 gunboats would thus be able to fire 96 missiles. This would be a fast and cheap way to clear minefields, but I'm not sure it would be better than using missiles launched from warships.  The advantage would be to clear mines without risking your warships. Any thoughts or comments?

Sorry if I ask, but as far as I know mines are not implemented in C#, so I don't see the need of a minesweeper.

So, did you manage to get mines to function and or encountered any minefield?

Thanks

This is the Starfire section of the forum, not Aurora.
66
SA Questions / Re: gunboats
« Last post by Froggiest1982 on November 26, 2020, 07:11:05 PM »
Quote from: TrueZuluwiz on November 26, 2020, 04:11:38 PM
A question that has bothered me for a while: would it be worth the effort to arm gunboats with standard anti-mine missiles and send them through to clear minefields? I can see that it would be a fast way to clear mines, since a gunboat can carry 16 standard missiles, therefore 16 standard anti-mine missiles. A squadron of 6 gunboats would thus be able to fire 96 missiles. This would be a fast and cheap way to clear minefields, but I'm not sure it would be better than using missiles launched from warships.  The advantage would be to clear mines without risking your warships. Any thoughts or comments?

Sorry if I ask, but as far as I know mines are not implemented in C#, so I don't see the need of a minesweeper.

So, did you manage to get mines to function and or encountered any minefield?

Thanks
67
SA Questions / gunboats
« Last post by TrueZuluwiz on November 26, 2020, 04:11:38 PM »
A question that has bothered me for a while: would it be worth the effort to arm gunboats with standard anti-mine missiles and send them through to clear minefields? I can see that it would be a fast way to clear mines, since a gunboat can carry 16 standard missiles, therefore 16 standard anti-mine missiles. A squadron of 6 gunboats would thus be able to fire 96 missiles. This would be a fast and cheap way to clear minefields, but I'm not sure it would be better than using missiles launched from warships.  The advantage would be to clear mines without risking your warships. Any thoughts or comments?
68
Starfire Rules / Re: IDEW and Gunboats
« Last post by Paul M on July 09, 2020, 02:54:11 PM »
yeah that is what is missing in the existing rules...that one short bit so one doesn't have to go through 4 different definitions to determine what a starship is and see that IDEW are anti-starship weapons and thus can engage gunboats even though the specific rules for them state they can't...*thumps head into desk* Thanks!

Now to figure out if a ship rearming GB weapons has to drop their drivefield...I think this is likely...as it is essentially re-loading an XO rack on the ship.
69
Starfire Rules / Re: IDEW and Gunboats
« Last post by Shinanygnz on July 09, 2020, 12:43:10 PM »
Looking in my copy of the draft 3DG rules
04.18.02.1 Target selection...IDEW of the laser buoy (DSB-L, see 27.05.04), IDEW (27.08.03) and IDEW-a (27.12.20) types may fire only at large units or gunboats, and cannot engage fighters or small craft. When firing at gunboats they suffer the normal penalty of -3 for anti-ship weapons firing at gunboats.
70
Starfire Rules / Re: IDEW and Gunboats
« Last post by Paul M on July 03, 2020, 11:47:56 AM »
I figure the end result is: DSB-L/IDEW are able to engage large units...and starships are part of the units defined as a large unit then "anti-starship weapons" include DSB-L/IDEW and GB can be targeted by "anti-starship weapons" at -3 so DSB-L/IDEW can engage them at -3.

Until DCS2 comes along though...as Starslayer was saying...a BB squadron can drop off 72 GBs when they transit so as far as the DSB-L/IDEW protecting the warp point are concerned there is now 78 targets to be engaged.   That makes the AW defending the WP pretty much useless in terms of damaging the BBs...the GBs are likely to take a good hit.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk