StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Thanas wrote:You mean...leave all your other planets undefended? Wouldn't that be a bit of a monumental mistake to make?

What do you mean by expansion? Constructing bigger shipyards and such? No problem with that, but you are gambling all your eggs in one (awfully big) basket. Of course, nobody is going to invade you right from the start, but it wouldn't make much sense IMO.

Erm, that's not what I meant. I allocated 6 Golan III platforms and 3 1000m shipyards to Kuat. Now granted parts of the ring around Kuat was probably damaged (otherwise, at its height, that ring had lots of ships around it under construction, along with offices, factories etc. etc.

What I meant, was like this: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:KDY ... _Array.jpg

Basically, is it OK to consolidate all that into that ring?

Eh, I see no reason why it should not be any problem at all. Basically, as the player, you can design your planets as long as it does not appear unrealistic and given that there is a historical precedent for Kuat to behave that way...seriously, don't sweat it.

I mean, I am planning to rebuilt Anaxes and Coruscant, so you rebuilding the ring isn't that much of an issue IMO (provided you have the points for building all those shipyards).

Though one thing - you might want to spread out your Golan III platforms and not have them in a fixed ring as IMO that makes them unable to respond to attacks from outside the rings firing arc. Just a friendly advice, because othersie your defences cannot cover your whole planet.

A question. Some ships and shipyards take more than one year to construct. Must the construction costs be paid upfront or spread across the construction time? I am trying to budget my construction, but some things like Tectors take over a year to construct.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:A question. Some ships and shipyards take more than one year to construct. Must the construction costs be paid upfront or spread across the construction time? I am trying to budget my construction, but some things like Tectors take over a year to construct.

I think upfront is the way to go as it allows me to keep track of points spend. I have no desire to think in cycles when doing so.

The only exception to that would be planetary improvement/reconstruction, as there is no way any of us is going to have ~10.000 point budget anytime soon. In that case, however, everybody should include a counter like X points to improve/reconstruct, Y points spend already.

Thanas wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:A question. Some ships and shipyards take more than one year to construct. Must the construction costs be paid upfront or spread across the construction time? I am trying to budget my construction, but some things like Tectors take over a year to construct.

I think upfront is the way to go as it allows me to keep track of points spend. I have no desire to think in cycles when doing so.

The only exception to that would be planetary improvement/reconstruction, as there is no way any of us is going to have ~10.000 point budget anytime soon. In that case, however, everybody should include a counter like X points to improve/reconstruct, Y points spend already.

Alright.

On another note, we are agreed that defence platforms, resupply stations have maintenance cost at 1/6 as stated in the rules?

Yes.

EDIT: Fingolfin, research may only be started after the appropriate yards have been built. Not before.

So research would be a one time cost too, or would it be a cyclical cost?

Agent Sorchus wrote:So research would be a one time cost too, or would it be a cyclical cost?

Yes, a one-time cost paid upfront.

I realize that this is not very realistic, but for the sake of simplicity this should be the way it is conducted.

Shinn Langley Soryu , your current OOB has one Viscount class star defender in it, worth 40 points.

This is not allowed, please change your OOB accordingly.

Right I have lots to update tonight. First update will contain relevant information, second diplomatic, this is going to take me a few hours to write it all up.

Right need an update, Manticore sent me an Ambassador, Thanas & RogueIce sent me one as well. Who else? At this point the CP has not sent ambassadors to anyone officially.

I sent out an envoy out too, to everyone. You all can deal with that how you wish.

Mr Bean wrote:Right need an update, Manticore sent me an Ambassador, Thanas & RogueIce sent me one as well. Who else? At this point the CP has not sent ambassadors to anyone officially.

I sent one too.

Just a note. The Wookieepedia entry for the ISDII does not indicate the type of starfighters the Imperator II carries.

Would the following be appropriate?

ISD II complement:

• *TIE Intercepters (48)
  *TIE Bombers (12)
  *TIE Boarding shuttles (12)
  *Lambda-class shuttles (8)[3]
  *Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
  *Assault gunboats (5)
  *Skipspray Blastboats (12)

Also, did we define a wing as 6 squadrons of 12? I am still working on calculating my budget for the year and I will post it up soon.

*Duplicate post deleted above
A "Wing" is a real world term, it refers to twelve squadrons of twelve or one hundred and forty-four planes.


Here is the correct EU observed ISD complement
*TIE Fighters (24)
*TIE Intercepters (24)
*TIE Bombers (12)
*TIE Recon(Various)(6)
*TIE Boarding shuttles (6)
*Lambda-class shuttles (8)[3]
*Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
*Assault gunboats (5)
*Skipspray Blastboats (12)

Without any modifications or anything else that was the standard all purpose loadout. Sometimes ISD's went into battle with tons of different loadouts. But if you grabbed any Sector fleet ISD that would be the correct load out. However the Skipspray Blastboats seem rare as we almost never saw the things in combat but per the Xwing serious and some other sources(Cross-sections and WEG) We know the Empire intended to replace all TIE Fighters with TIE Interceptors but never could afford to not because of cost but because of attrition.

Much like how in WWII how the Germans intended to replace the much easier to use and cheaper and over-all better MG42 for all MG34's however it being war-time and the production lines still open and demand so high, then went right on producing both verisons. This TIE Fighters, while intending to be phased out were still being made in-mass to replace losses, with succesful pilots getting Interceptors and the newbies getting TIE's making losses worse again.

Well, I am definitely fine with the above, though it is likely I will aim to replace my TIE Fighters with TIE Interceptors and TIE Interceptors with TIE Avengers. Bombers will be replaced with TIE Scimitars or Assault Gunboats. The TIE fighters will obviously continue flying, but will be relegated to system patrol, etc.

Also, I think a complement for the Venator will need to be worked out. After all, this is 2 over decades since the Clone Wars and any left will be operating TIEs and the like. ARC-170s do still have some use however..

EDIT: The Venator as of the Clone Wars carries thus:

• Alpha-3 Nimbus-class V-wing or V-19 Torrent starfighters (192)
• ARC-170 starfighters (36)
• Eta-2 Actis-class light interceptors (192)
• LAAT/i gunships (40)[1]

Now, I am not sure if people still want to use LAAT/i gunships in this era, though those things do have uses for insertion strikes, so they will be left there. My proposal is to replace the ARC-170s with Assault Gunboats which are the near analog, and they were used for reconnaissance runs in the TIE Fighter game. The V-wings are replaced with TIE Fighters. and the ETA-2 replaced with TIE Interceptors.

Any objections?

Thanas wrote:Yes.

EDIT: Fingolfin, research may only be started after the appropriate yards have been built. Not before.

Well, I did say the real work will start next year when the 1600m yards are completed. In the meantime, the requirements, and specifications will be drawn up.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Well, I am definitely fine with the above, though it is likely I will aim to replace my TIE Fighters with TIE Interceptors and TIE Interceptors with TIE Avengers. Bombers will be replaced with TIE Scimitars or Assault Gunboats. The TIE fighters will obviously continue flying, but will be relegated to system patrol, etc.

Also, I think a complement for the Venator will need to be worked out. After all, this is 2 over decades since the Clone Wars and any left will be operating TIEs and the like. ARC-170s do still have some use however..

EDIT: The Venator as of the Clone Wars carries thus:

• Alpha-3 Nimbus-class V-wing or V-19 Torrent starfighters (192)
• ARC-170 starfighters (36)
• Eta-2 Actis-class light interceptors (192)
• LAAT/i gunships (40)[1]

Now, I am not sure if people still want to use LAAT/i gunships in this era, though those things do have uses for insertion strikes, so they will be left there. My proposal is to replace the ARC-170s with Assault Gunboats which are the near analog, and they were used for reconnaissance runs in the TIE Fighter game. The V-wings are replaced with TIE Fighters. and the ETA-2 replaced with TIE Interceptors.

Any objections?

Sounds good to me.

Mr Bean wrote:*Duplicate post deleted above
A "Wing" is a real world term, it refers to twelve squadrons of twelve or one hundred and forty-four planes.

In Star Wars though, a wing is generally represented as 6 squadrons of 12, or 72 fighters. IOW, an ISD loadout.

The New Republic used a different metric: 3 squadrons of 12, or 36 fighters. Wookieepedia article on "Fighter wings"

So it depends on if we want more or less fighters, which definition to use insofar as points and industry are concerned. We could even split it up between Imperial and New Republic "wings", as I'm sure we can agree that, in general, 72 X-wings > 72 TIE fighters. Game balance and all that good stuff.

As a player, of course, you can define a "wing" however you want to.

Shinn Langley Soryu wrote:"I'm glad you agree with me, Simon. So, how are negotiations with Giju, Kinyen, and Yag'Dhul going right now?"

"The Givin, Gran, and Herglics all want to join up, mainly because it's a choice between us and the Imperials, and we all know a few things about Imperial xenophobia," Simon replied. "Official treaties should be drawn up by the end of the month and ratified by the League Congress shortly afterwards."

"Also, how's the rest of the Tapani Sector doing?" Kamina asked some more. "When will Houses Caadrian and Pelagia officially join the League? Are there still Imperial holdouts in the Mecetti and Melantha Provinces?"

"Achillea and Pelagon are due to join the League around the same time as Giju, Kinyen, and Yag'Dhul. The few Imperial forces in the sector that haven't already joined us or sought asylum with the Imperial remnants have now been pushed to the former House Mecetti capital world of Obulette."

"If they're that stubborn and they don't want to join us or their friends in the remnants, crush them."

"Consider them crushed, Mr. President."

There has been some concern raised over this, so I think I'll address it now. Shinn, what's your intention here? Having all these planets join up and devoting points would be, well, pretty close to powergaming. And we'd like to avoid that.

Now, using diplomacy to bring planets into your fold is not against any rules or guidelines. We should, after all, do more than just conquest. Still, there should be, for gameplay reasons, some reasonable limits imposed. At this point, bringing in five or so worlds would be very unbalancing.

Some thoughts I've had, for RP purposes, is that sort of like conquest, you're not going to get the full resources (read: points) of a system all at once through diplomacy. For one thing, negotiations would probably take several months, to convince them why they're better off with you. And then of course you have to incorporate them, deal with government issues, industry standardization, and other things. So it'd be a gradual process, not an all at once thing.

Also, let's look at the state of the galaxy. Right now, we're not all that impressive. So we're not going to have planets rushing to join us or anything. You might get one or two not very impressive systems to want to join you. But even then, does that mean we'll get full points? I'd think they'd offer token support (ie: not full points) in return for promises of protection at this stage of the game, as they sort of size us up and see what we're all about. Now, if this game goes on to the point that we have 20 systems then having a couple average worlds and some minor worlds join at once probably won't be an issue. But at this point, it would wreck general balance issues. So we need to take into account the state of the galaxy.

I'm not here saying we need to create more rules for this sort of thing. Still, we need to use some common sense and limit ourselves from rapid expansion, or this'll become a game of who can produce more ISDs.

Heck, at this point you can have planets "align" with you be about the same as NPC trade agreements: there for RP purposes, but in actual gameplay terms (industrial points) they don't provide much, if anything. And still, you're not going to have a lot of alignment. Not until we've proven ourselves and such. We can't go conquer ten planets with our current resources; I don't think we can diplomatically sway them to us either.

On a similar note, in addition to NPC systems I was thinking at some point we might have actual NPC factions as well. For a challenge and story stuff, they would be nice to have. Plus, it makes sense that we're not the only ones banding together. These can be Mod created if we feel the need, but I'd welcome proposals from other players as well. We'll keep them reasonable, and of course we can scale with the general power levels of the players as the game goes on as well if we want to (some equal, some lesser...some stronger than us!). Though please don't create them from nothing and just have them there. Submit them to us first. The Yevetha are an example of a NPC faction we might play with, as well as the Hutts.

^I concur with my colleague in everything he said.

There has to be some good, logical, in-story plot for a planet to join. Some build-up, some context-- and the larger and more powerful a planet is, the more work it should be. I could see an abandoned Colony joining up with minor formalities for the protection offered, but powerful worlds can dictate their own terms and are probably being courted by others. But even Colonies will have misgivings if they fear being "swallowed up/dominated" by powers they don't have much in common with. For example, would a former Republic colony happily join an Imperial faction? Probably not, unless they are being attacked and crumbling.

Let's see some role-play with Ambassadors, trade offers, and actual effort put into it, please.

RogueIce wrote:As a player, of course, you can define a "wing" however you want to.

All well and said, there's still the issue of defining the wing in general terms since points are attached to a wing.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

RogueIce wrote:As a player, of course, you can define a "wing" however you want to.

All well and said, there's still the issue of defining the wing in general terms since points are attached to a wing.

I know. That was the first half of my post.

I noticed that the Malevolence is missing from the CIS ship list. Is there any reason for this? Is it because of a balancing issue?

darthkommandant wrote:I noticed that the Malevolence is missing from the CIS ship list. Is there any reason for this? Is it because of a balancing issue?

That list is old. It didn't even update itself for the 17km Viscount initially.