I was thinking about the masses and costs involved with tugs and no-ftl
ships, and this came to mind.(excuse the mixed tech of using C pulsars, I
severly like the close range firepower they have).
Pahrana class LAC Mass=20 Cost=73 Hull=2 Thrust=10 Firecon x1 PDS x1 SMR x1 C
Pulsar (1arc) x1
Mother class FTL Tug Mass=21 Cost=63 Hull=2 Thrust=1 FTL Drive=18
The above tug+4 LACs Vs FTL version of the above LAC
Shark class FTL LAC Mass=24 Cost=85 Hull=2 Thrust=10 FTL drive Firecon x1 PDS
x1 SMR x1 C Pulsar (1arc) x1
If my maths above are correct (someone want to check?), a flight of 4 FTL
ships costs 340 pts and masses 96, Vs a cost of 355 and a mass of 101 for a
group of 4 LACs and a FTL tug. In and campain or stategic system, I could
see the non-FTL version being better in the fact that you woul only have
to replace the actual LACs (requiring a mass of 80 and a cost of 292), the tug
staying very far away from the fight. In any economic system or campaign
requiring you to build the ships in the first place, this would be a very big
advantage. As to the combat power of these ships, against anything but
fighters, they will destroy any ship of equal mass or cost, with varing
suvival rates depending on how they are used. I was wondering if anybody else
has had a lot of experiance of using swarm type tactics using light ships?
Also, a question that arised from testing these small ships, was that when
using Cl 1 bats as PDS, you require a F.con per Cl 1 batt, but can the firecon
(NOT the Cl 1 batt) be used also in the ship weapon fire phase?
(just like firecons used with missiles/sml`s?).
BIF "yorkshire born,yorkshire bred, strong in arms, thick in head"
PS-In testing the above ships, the maneuverablity of the ships allows
you to go from beyond the target ships weapon range to close range (within the
range of a C pulsar) in a single turn. Also, it doesn`t matter what the other
ship tries, these things have such a high thrust that avioding SML`s or
catching a ship trying to run is easy (to see what I mean, try 4 of these
against a CH, rough match in mass and cost, but if handled right, these little
buggers can fire their SMR`s, and break away using their high thrust and kill
a CH before it can do anything. Also, missiles hit before a beam can fire, so
it may be posible to kill a beam armed target before they
The only issue I can see with the swarm tactic is how you set initiative.
In the book version of initiative, both sides roll, the winner goes first
using one of his ships. Then the other player goes using one of his ships, and
back and forth.
Small ships vs. one giant ship effectively dicounts initiative. You may win
initiative, but you only fire with a small ship, maybe 10% of your firepower,
while your opponent (with one giant ship) goes next and can use 100% of his
firepower.
If your opponent is smart, he will target ships that haven't fired yet.
So, say you fire with your first small ship (using 10% of your total fleet's
firepower) your opponent fires with his big ship (using 100% of his fleets
firepower) and effectively starts whittling down your combat power before your
other ships get a chance to be useful.
One way to make sure this doesn't happen is to base initiative on thrust. I
like this idea the best as usually the smaller ships have more thrust, meaning
that the smaller, more manueverable ships get a chance.
> --- Bif Smith <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted original message omitted]
Heh heh yeppers, With missles and fighters, initiative is effectively a moot
point.
As for the fire control limits, normally would agree, if you are using the
'canned' ships out of the book. Heh heh heh but (as I mentioned a while ago
when I was seeking advice on fighting Sa'vasku monoliths) my group usually
custom builds our ships. Heh heh heh when we play a 2000pt battle, one of my
friends builds one giant 2000pt ship. He makes sure to put many many many
FireCons on it. Heh heh heh heh always lots of fun.
This is how I became accutely aware of the initiative issue.
> --- Bif Smith <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> --- Shawn M Mininger <smininger@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Sa'vasku ability on custom hulls to build something like 40 fighter groups
on 2000 points
seems kind of unbeatable. No-one in our group
wants to play scenarios with them anymore. I might if I had a MAJOR MAJOR
point advantage in the game. The Kra'vak and the Phalons seem somewhat more
manageable. I admit I have very little FT experience to base this on. I'd
almost rather play the B5 shadows. At least there you might have the Mimbari
to attack them with.
Actually, I have a ton of experience with this very thing. Facing Sa'Vasku
Monoliths was unbeatable. He didn't even take many fighters, just a bunch of
FireCons and blasters(I don't remember the official name for them) and an
immense amount of power. He had so much power to pump into the blasters, he
could hit us from accross the board before we could get close. When we finally
got a few remaining ships close, he was even more efficient at blowing us up.
We finally came to the same conclusion. Phalons and Kra'Vak are balanced, but
we no longer allowed Sa'Vasku....thier ships allow too much leeway for abuse
when custom building.
> --- David Griffin <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Shawn M Mininger
> <smininger@yahoo.com> writes:
Yes, but we discussed that issue out when you first brought it up and I expect
it would only last as long as the other players' patience...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:36:43 +0100 "Bif Smith"
<bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
> I was thinking about the masses and costs involved with tugs and
Wow, a fast mover, fer sure! Would dropping the thrust to 8 or even 6 loosen
up enough mass for another weapon (Haven't done the math yet myself.)
> Mother class FTL Tug
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 19:26:29 +0100 "Bif Smith"
<bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
Anyone tried fire by squadron? Although I like what i am hearing about
simultaneous fire (for smaller scenarios at least.)
> Small ships vs. one giant ship effectively dicounts
Yeppers, heh heh heh I put up with it for quite a while. I don't like to be a
whiner and I took it as a challenge, but one of my other buddies finally piped
up and said he's not willing to play anymore against the sa'vasku. I have to
admit that I breathed a sigh of relief.
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 19:26:29 +0100 "Bif Smith"
<bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk>
> writes:
We had discussed fire of equal MASS in another thread. Basically, the MASS of
the largest ship involved in the battle is the limit for a single activation.
You need to make sure that you're playing with others that can do basic math
off the cuff, or else it can bog down while others attempt
to mini-max.
> Wow, a fast mover, fer sure! Would dropping the thrust to 8 or even 6
Every thrust point on one of these is 1 mass (5%), so if you go for a close
attack version (only a c pulsar, no SMR), you could up the thrust to 18!. If
you dropped the thrust, you would be removing the only real defence these
ships have. These ships go pop very easily, but there high thrust allows them
to stay outside the enemies firepower until they want to, and given a
head start, they can even stay away from/outrun fighters.
Also, against a SV monolith, try a equal point fleet of realy small high
thrust ships, and try to bring more ships than he has targeting
nodes/firecons, that is the idea behind these ships (ie-a 10 mass, 1
fire con, 1 c pulsar (1 arc), thrust 12, cost of 35).
[quoted original message omitted]
From: "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk>
> If my maths above are correct (someone want to check?), a flight of 4
If the tug is close enough to be reached by the enemy at all, the enemy will
converge on it and destroy it, then jump out, stranding the swarm. In a
campaign game this forces diversion of another tug to rescue and setu up a
possible ambush situation.
If the tug is indeed far enough from the action so as not to be involved in
combat, then the non-FTL ships have to pay extra points (10-20%
Laserlight?) to compensate for the lack of targetable transportation. That
kills your point advantage.
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> If the tug is indeed far enough from the action so as not to be
[quoted original message omitted]
> If the tug is indeed far enough from the action so as not to be
> Bif Smith wrote:
> Bif Smith wrote:
[designs snipped - all are OK. Nice to see someone else use reasonable
thrust ratings <g>]
> If my maths above are correct (someone want to check?),
Done. They are :-)
> a flight of 4 FTL ships costs 340 pts and masses 96, Vs a cost of
The drawback is that FTL-capable ships often find it easier to escape
from a losing fight than sub-light ships (by hypering out). Not that
much of a
problem with thrust-10 ships as it is with thrust-6 or slower, nor with
ships this fragile (since they usually die when they're hit), but a factor
nonetheless.
Of course, this tug is *very* vulnerable if an enemy manages to get past the
LACs. It is quite annoying to have your battle carriers destroyed -
and conversely very fun to blow your opponent's tugs up and lock his
sub-light
units to a single system <g>
> As to the combat power of these ships, against anything but
Um... if the LACs hit with at least 3 of their SMRs, the they will probably
win. If the missiles miss, or if one or more of the LACs are destroyed before
the others can launch, they'll most likely lose.
> I was wondering if anybody else has had a lot of experiance of
<raises hand>
Plenty of experience defeating them, too :-/
> Also, a question that arised from testing these small ships, was that
Good question. The rules don't say, though I suspect that Jon intended
the MT rule to mean "no". I'd prefer to say "yes" instead - otherwise
an escort under attack by fighters has to choose between firing its B1s at the
fighters and firing its bigger weapons at the enemy ships (if it
survives the fighter attack) :-/
> PS-In testing the above ships, the maneuverablity of the ships allows
OTOH, if the *cruiser* is handled right - only really possible on big
or
floating tables though - the LACs will have to come inside its beam
weapon envelope before they can launch.
> Also, missiles hit before a beam can fire, so it may be posible to
Only if the target allows the LACs to attack it head-on :-/
Bif wrote in reply to someone:
> Wow, a fast mover, fer sure! Would dropping the thrust to 8 or even
Um, no. Dropping the SMR only frees 4 Mass, giving you thrust-14. You
have to drop the Pulser, the FCS and the PDS as well, leaving only the
minimum hull structure and the engines, to reach thrust-18 :-/
Laserlight wrote in reply to Noam:
> If the tug is indeed far enough from the action so as not to be
That >>kills your point advantage.
In a one-off tactical battle, yes. Not in a campaign game though - the
benefit there isn't that you don't have to pay for the tug (because you do),
but rather that you don't have to pay for a *new* tug when you lose the strike
boats. Assuming, of course, that the attackers can't get past the LACs to hit
the tug directly <g>
> Oerjan's opinion is that it should be 10-15%; that the difference
Yep. That's to some extent based on our local "standard" victory
conditions though - we award more points for enemy cripples which
surrender than for enemy cripples which manage to flee.
Regards,
Wow, I never even thought about this. Usually in my group, all ships have FTL
drives. We do allow System Defense Boats without FTL if it is your own planet
being attacked. We have used the idea of FTL tugs but they have to stay on the
board until a retreat is called.
--- "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
> Shawn M Mininger wrote:
I'm hearing more and more of this and it bites! I mean I just got a big
Sa'vasku fleeet started:) I'd like to think I design more theme fleets then
just trying to make one that wins by breaking the rules.
On the same note fighters are considered broken by a lot of people. <shrug>
It's all about how you play. I personally think there's always a way to
counter any playing style, though I do admit I haven't had to deal with most
of the broken fleets some of the rest of you have had to.
> > >This is how I became accutely aware of the
I still recomend people playing with card deck initiative. I've played with
several different ways, and I think it's the best still.
> --- Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
...
> I'm hearing more and more of this and it bites! I
...
I used to think I was pretty open minded, but a couple of games against
customized Savasku ships has made me unwilling to fight them again without a
REALLY SIGNFICANT point advantage. You can always try offering the opponent
say 150% or 200% of your points and see if they'll take it. I find too that
small Savasku units aren't too horrible, maybe you can do some very small (500
pt) engagements.
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:59:00 -0700 (PDT) Shawn M Mininger
> <smininger@yahoo.com> writes:
Just based on the surface of what you told us, you were patient (maybe too but
then there is truth in Gygax's comment about minotaurs and war gamers...) and
a good opponent to try and defeat the monolith using the rules but it just
shows that any rule can be twisted (for a multiple of reasons) to a point
where the letter breaks the spirit of the rules. I am glad you were able to
work it out. I have known acquaintances who would 'walk away' if their
favorite munchkinism was ruled out of bounds.
It's better when a player gives up a 'fer sure' win due to a flaw in the rules
then when that player insists on playing the rule over the game.
> David Griffin wrote:
> I used to think I was pretty open minded, but a
Would you classify a mixed sa'vas fleet heavily unbalanced too? I'm running
(at max) 4 frigates, 4 destroyers, 3 cruisers, 3 heavy cruisers, 2
battleships, 2 superdreadnoughts, with the dreadnoughts coming out only in the
big games. If anyone is interested I can post a URL for SSDs for my ships.
G'day guys,
Must admit we don't run the "super mothership from hell" customised SV, but
the homegrown SV we have run have been OK. This is especially true if you use
the range bands = 9" and spicules from D pool, pods from R pool suggested
changes as this makes the SV player make hard choices. I wouldn't give up on
the SV they can be a heap of fun to play (with and against).
Giving a purpose to the mission can also be a "balancer" - against Derek
we could just "go out and fight" as he's experienced enough to figure out how
to cope, against Lachy we have objectives so Lachy can cope with the SV's
unpredictability. Guess it all comes down to the style of play you enjoy most.
Cheers
> --- Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
...
> Would you classify a mixed sa'vas fleet heavily
I don't know. I don't have that much experience with Sa'Vasku to know what
contributes to the
sense of doom you get when you see those shadow-
lookalikes setup on the other side of the board. Perhaps it's just that there
are more than the
usual number of min-max exploitations available.
When points increase, the Sa'Vasku seem to increase in power faster than other
races. In one small game I played in which my ally was Sa'Vasku the points
seemed to balance ok (I came out on top with one small ship left with 4 boxes
of hull remaining and almost no systems capable of operation), but any larger
game we've played has been a rout.