D6
- Thread starter storeylf
- Start date
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
I'm fine with the D6 having Phaser-1s, but I do suspect that the D6's points cost is a bit low. Especially given I've seen many people flocking to it and ignoring or shunning the D5s and D7s.
"I do really beleive that the D-6 is the best priced cruiser considering the weaponry you get on it. It's great at dancing away and firing from long ranges...and it's the cheapest '4xDisrupter, 2xDrone' that you can get."
To quote deadshane from another thread.
Originally I thought the D7 was overcosted, the 5 point decrease was quite nice. Now though I think the D6 might need to be increased a bit, say 10 points. I mean is 20 points really worth two damage points and two Phaser-2s?
Then again there are some other strangely pointed ships out there. Such as the Federation Prometheus Strike Cruiser. 185 Points. Exact same armament as a Constitution CA, half the labs, one extra transporter and 4 less damage points for... 5 MORE points? I'm sorry but that doesn't make much sense. :?
"I do really beleive that the D-6 is the best priced cruiser considering the weaponry you get on it. It's great at dancing away and firing from long ranges...and it's the cheapest '4xDisrupter, 2xDrone' that you can get."
To quote deadshane from another thread.
Originally I thought the D7 was overcosted, the 5 point decrease was quite nice. Now though I think the D6 might need to be increased a bit, say 10 points. I mean is 20 points really worth two damage points and two Phaser-2s?
Then again there are some other strangely pointed ships out there. Such as the Federation Prometheus Strike Cruiser. 185 Points. Exact same armament as a Constitution CA, half the labs, one extra transporter and 4 less damage points for... 5 MORE points? I'm sorry but that doesn't make much sense. :?
GalagaGalaxian said:
I think the Strike Cruiser is paying the extra 5 points for the added drone net of the damage points. Given the relative worth the the various BC iterations along with the NCA and NCL, neither it or the CA are are great deal at 185 and 180 respectively and the CC is simply a horrible deal at 205.
I'm a huge fan of the D5. Only 15 points more than the D6 and a possessor of the magic 20 shield points making the reinforce shield special action Klingon worthy which on a ship unaffected by the need to reload, is quite handy.
The D5 is pretty good - it gets proper guns (Phaser 1's) and good defences - both Anti-drone 2 and phaser 3's The D5W is really good - even more proper guns 
I'd not bother with the D7 at all - and if I want Command I'd go for the C7 or the C8
now a D6 Command Cruiser sounds much more usefeul
I'd not bother with the D7 at all - and if I want Command I'd go for the C7 or the C8
now a D6 Command Cruiser sounds much more usefeul
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
Da Boss said:I'd not bother with the D7 at all - and if I want Command I'd go for the C7 or the C8
now a D6 Command Cruiser sounds much more usefeul
This is exactly what I mean. One should bother with the D7! Either it still costs too much or, more likely in my opinion, the D6 is too cheap!
[edit] Ok, I missed the extra drone on the strike cruiser, however, I think the loss of damage points kinda balances out.
Apparently not according to the SFB/FC people who post on here
I think the D6 is ok points wise when you you look at other fleets - not sure the D7 is right though but not played enough to be sure......... then again it never appears in fleet choices..............
Just Phaser 2's is also a big downgrade as they are very inferior to Phaser 1's - less range and less chance to hit
I think the D6 is ok points wise when you you look at other fleets - not sure the D7 is right though but not played enough to be sure......... then again it never appears in fleet choices..............
Just Phaser 2's is also a big downgrade as they are very inferior to Phaser 1's - less range and less chance to hit
In SFB, there is the D6, D6B, and D6K. The B and K are upgrades to the base D6 (and D7) that includes upgrading the Ph-2 and fixing the glass rear shields.
In FedCmdr, ships are shown as late-war with all upgrades. The D6 appears to be an exception because it never got the K-refit to upgrade the phasers.
In both SFB and (to a lesser degree) FedCmdr, the D7 is a much bette ship than the D6. However, in ACTA, that difference is lost due to the simplification of the game engine.
In FedCmdr, ships are shown as late-war with all upgrades. The D6 appears to be an exception because it never got the K-refit to upgrade the phasers.
In both SFB and (to a lesser degree) FedCmdr, the D7 is a much bette ship than the D6. However, in ACTA, that difference is lost due to the simplification of the game engine.
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
Indeed, however, while I am a big fan of scenarios and "historical" play, I also think basic points costs should be balanced without regard to "historical accuracy". Scenario games don't really have to worry about points (since historical or pre-established scenarios are often unbalanced anyways to create an interesting game), but competitive "normal" play does.
I admit this is a difficult situation, the D6, D7, D5, and D5W are all within a very close range of points. However the D7 is being nearly completely shunned on the forum, as far as I can tell, thus I believe if this continues, that it or it's peers need to be looked at from a points perspective.
I admit this is a difficult situation, the D6, D7, D5, and D5W are all within a very close range of points. However the D7 is being nearly completely shunned on the forum, as far as I can tell, thus I believe if this continues, that it or it's peers need to be looked at from a points perspective.
By the time the D5W is doing the rounds, D7s would be getting converted into D7Ws; which, unlike the Federation CB, hasn't been brought over to FC from SFB yet. As with the Constitution-to-Gettsyburg-class upgrade in Star Fleet, part of the point was to have the older "pre-war" hulls optimised into more powerful variants, since their regular place as line ships had been largely been taken over by their newer wartime counterparts.
I think that these ships being so easily sidelined is a symptom of the shift in focus from the Middle Years to the General War in terms of what is treated as "Main Era" Alpha Octant play. When the first iterations of the "TV ships" were introduced back in the day, it would have been before the refits which many players now expect to see included; before the "war" classes were created to flesh out the various fleets (which, in SFB, were only gradually added to the game system; additions which essentially forced the surviving pre-war ships to be upgraded to keep from being outclassed entirely) and before the array of empires and unit types were expanded upon to the point that the default setting shifted in order to allow them to be on the table, so to speak.
If FC (and thus Starmada and ACtA:SF) had started off with the Middle Years and only later introduced the General War era, it would have highlighted the role of the "TV ships" (and of the various "Franz Joseph" ships derived from the Star Fleet Technical Manual), but would also have cut back on the array of empires eligible to add in, along with the types of units the available powers would have available.
As it stands, the General War is the place where the game starts, and it's an open question as to whether or not this game would ever go "back" to explore the Middle Years as a setting (akin to how Briefing #2 does so for FC); but even if doing so would give the unrefitted ships their day in the sun, would that be enough to draw enough people into playing in that setting to make it worth Mongoose's while, or will most players want to stay in the Main Era either way?
I think that these ships being so easily sidelined is a symptom of the shift in focus from the Middle Years to the General War in terms of what is treated as "Main Era" Alpha Octant play. When the first iterations of the "TV ships" were introduced back in the day, it would have been before the refits which many players now expect to see included; before the "war" classes were created to flesh out the various fleets (which, in SFB, were only gradually added to the game system; additions which essentially forced the surviving pre-war ships to be upgraded to keep from being outclassed entirely) and before the array of empires and unit types were expanded upon to the point that the default setting shifted in order to allow them to be on the table, so to speak.
If FC (and thus Starmada and ACtA:SF) had started off with the Middle Years and only later introduced the General War era, it would have highlighted the role of the "TV ships" (and of the various "Franz Joseph" ships derived from the Star Fleet Technical Manual), but would also have cut back on the array of empires eligible to add in, along with the types of units the available powers would have available.
As it stands, the General War is the place where the game starts, and it's an open question as to whether or not this game would ever go "back" to explore the Middle Years as a setting (akin to how Briefing #2 does so for FC); but even if doing so would give the unrefitted ships their day in the sun, would that be enough to draw enough people into playing in that setting to make it worth Mongoose's while, or will most players want to stay in the Main Era either way?
The fleet that I've been using that's pretty devestatingly effective at 1000pts...
6x D-6
1x F-5
Essentially breaks down to....
20 Ph-1
24(26) Disr
13 Drone
134 HP
124 Sheilds
..................................
At 1000pts a decent fleet featuring D-7's might be
5x D-7
1x D-6
18 Ph-1
10 Ph-2
24 Disr
12 Drone
130 HP's
108 Sheilds
All the extra phaser 2's might be worth it if you plan on closing...but that's not the Klingon Game. They're stronger if they maintain distance and plink away with disrupters and drones at range.
That's the problem with the D-7. It actually is probably pointed correctly, but it doesnt really fit into fleet strategy....unless you're planning a fleet to charge down someones throat with.
People say that Phaser-2's arent worth the points...they might change their tune after a phaser 2 armed ship gets within 4"....when those phaser 2's are almost as good as 1's.
6x D-6
1x F-5
Essentially breaks down to....
20 Ph-1
24(26) Disr
13 Drone
134 HP
124 Sheilds
..................................
At 1000pts a decent fleet featuring D-7's might be
5x D-7
1x D-6
18 Ph-1
10 Ph-2
24 Disr
12 Drone
130 HP's
108 Sheilds
All the extra phaser 2's might be worth it if you plan on closing...but that's not the Klingon Game. They're stronger if they maintain distance and plink away with disrupters and drones at range.
That's the problem with the D-7. It actually is probably pointed correctly, but it doesnt really fit into fleet strategy....unless you're planning a fleet to charge down someones throat with.
People say that Phaser-2's arent worth the points...they might change their tune after a phaser 2 armed ship gets within 4"....when those phaser 2's are almost as good as 1's.
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
Thats why I'm saying the D6 is probably undercosted. The D7 is decent at 170 points. But when the D6 is only 150, it shines compared to the D5(W) and D7.
Now, I understand two things about the Points Costs in CTA:SF. A) They were based on the Federation Commander points costs B) They were potentially adjusted via playtesting. Now, with these two in mind, here is a bit of a comparison:
And finally D6 FedCom Cost: 130*1.25 = 162.5
What about the D6 warranted a minor discount down to 150 points, instead of the 160-165ish the "average" multiplier would've warranted? Would you guys still have eyes only for the D6 if it was 160 points?
I'm not saying all ships should be pointed at their FedCom cost *1.25. On the contrary, I think many ships didn't potentially have their points costs changed enough to reflect the effectiveness in the Call to Arms format. Perhaps there just wasn't enough playtesting time thanks to that December release.
[edit] Of course, I do understand that no one is perfect (definitely not I) and that playtesters can't catch everything compared to however many thousands(?) of actual players. I also know that well-balanced points costs are a bitch to get correct. Heck, I wouldn't even have noticed the D6 issue(?) save for so many comments about the lack of appeal on the D7 or how the D6 is so awesome. I could be completely wrong! Maybe the D6 points cost is fine and everyone flocking to it is just a fad that will blow over as people see the value of those two extra Ph-2s and 2 damage points.
What I'm trying to say is, I'm nagging and griping because I care. I want to see the game be the best it can be.
Now, I understand two things about the Points Costs in CTA:SF. A) They were based on the Federation Commander points costs B) They were potentially adjusted via playtesting. Now, with these two in mind, here is a bit of a comparison:
And finally D6 FedCom Cost: 130*1.25 = 162.5
What about the D6 warranted a minor discount down to 150 points, instead of the 160-165ish the "average" multiplier would've warranted? Would you guys still have eyes only for the D6 if it was 160 points?
I'm not saying all ships should be pointed at their FedCom cost *1.25. On the contrary, I think many ships didn't potentially have their points costs changed enough to reflect the effectiveness in the Call to Arms format. Perhaps there just wasn't enough playtesting time thanks to that December release.
[edit] Of course, I do understand that no one is perfect (definitely not I) and that playtesters can't catch everything compared to however many thousands(?) of actual players. I also know that well-balanced points costs are a bitch to get correct. Heck, I wouldn't even have noticed the D6 issue(?) save for so many comments about the lack of appeal on the D7 or how the D6 is so awesome. I could be completely wrong! Maybe the D6 points cost is fine and everyone flocking to it is just a fad that will blow over as people see the value of those two extra Ph-2s and 2 damage points.
What I'm trying to say is, I'm nagging and griping because I care. I want to see the game be the best it can be.
For the record...an even better D-7 fleet at 990pts...even has the much maligned D-7C
1xD-7C
2xD-7
3xD-6
...feels almost fluffy!
Going Head to head...
20 Ph-1
8 Ph-2
24 Disr
12 Drone
126 HP
108 Shields
Command +1
I actually think I may like this list better than the D-6 only version. The command +1 and D-7 compliment should make for a better fleet that has much more knife fighting range slugfest power.
Seems more balance to me than straight D-6's...and the F-5 is sort of meh.
1xD-7C
2xD-7
3xD-6
...feels almost fluffy!
Going Head to head...
20 Ph-1
8 Ph-2
24 Disr
12 Drone
126 HP
108 Shields
Command +1
I actually think I may like this list better than the D-6 only version. The command +1 and D-7 compliment should make for a better fleet that has much more knife fighting range slugfest power.
Seems more balance to me than straight D-6's...and the F-5 is sort of meh.
deadshane said:
The assumption here is that you are fighting a static enemy. If they charge down _your_ throat, the effect is the same...
deadshane said:
Almost. Start getting into stone-throwing range (whether it is your choice or your opponent's) and the difference between phasers-1 and phasers-2 becomes readily apparent.
Ultimately, the D6 had a slight points chop because, after a great deal of play, it was found wanting. The D7 is a better ship across more scenarios. You have identified one situation where they D6, used in number, is superior - but just try maintaining that situation beyond turn two (or even turn one, in some games).
Thing is though, with Klingon ships, maintaining a range reallyl isnt that big of a problem. Outmaneuvering your opponents is what they do.
Feds or Gorn ships essetially fly right at them and Klingons can skirt that medium range and shuffle to the sides and around the opponents flanks with ease.
I see what you're saying though...the D7 is indeed better up close. Perhaps I'm just of the opinion that if klingons dont want you to close...you pretty much wont. I could be wrong...but at any rate I think it presents a very real and very big problem for an opposing fleet to solve...
...now, two klingons going up against one another? I'd say the one that smartly features some D-7's in place of the 6's has a very decent chance of coming out on top.
Feds or Gorn ships essetially fly right at them and Klingons can skirt that medium range and shuffle to the sides and around the opponents flanks with ease.
I see what you're saying though...the D7 is indeed better up close. Perhaps I'm just of the opinion that if klingons dont want you to close...you pretty much wont. I could be wrong...but at any rate I think it presents a very real and very big problem for an opposing fleet to solve...
...now, two klingons going up against one another? I'd say the one that smartly features some D-7's in place of the 6's has a very decent chance of coming out on top.
