How Important Are SRW To LRW Designs?

Home of SOLAR STARFIRE, 6th edition, rules based on the upcoming history of the Terran Solar Union.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

How Important Are SRW To LRW Designs?

Postby SCC on Sat 03 Dec 2016 01:40

OK playing around with starting designs, using Fa and Ra, and putting together a destroyer to carry 3 Ra after putting in every else I need I find that there's only room for one Mg, which I feel might not be enough, my options are:
[list=]
[*]Keep things as they are
[*]Swap out the Fa for a third Ra and a second Mg
[*]Switch to using La for my SRW and put in a La and Mg
[/list]
SCC
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 739
Joined: Fri 08 Mar 2013 15:11

Re: How Important Are SRW To LRW Designs?

Postby Lomn on Sat 03 Dec 2016 11:06

Generally, Ra x3 + Fa (17 HS) is going to leave you light on passive defenses, and the Fa is going to be ballast unless you're at SRW range where that fragility is going to be apparent quickly. As such, I'd consider that even the magazine space you have now (which is enough for 30 full volleys) is excessive. If you want to pack along the Fa, I'd drop the Mg to Mgs + Hs (18 volleys, +1 HTK). If you switch to La, I'd do the same and consider using the saved HS on S or A. Even if you take the Ra x4 approach, I'd still consider the Mgs only (still 16 volleys), but run a sample combat and see if your DDs are likely to be able to hold the range against something and/or require that many rounds to conclude a combat. Under no circumstances would I run two full Mg on a unit like this; at most, Mg + Mgs + Hs (which is 31 volleys for Ra x4).

I'd also consider doing DD LRW platforms as a mix of the pure-LRW and the LRW+SRW designs rather than just using one single class.
User avatar
Lomn
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2012 08:19
Location: MSFC, Alabama

Re: How Important Are SRW To LRW Designs?

Postby SCC on Sat 03 Dec 2016 20:08

For passive defenses I've put in the suggested about of 13% in A and S combined, to wit 2 of each, are you saying that's not enough? If so it so look kinda of light.
SCC
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 739
Joined: Fri 08 Mar 2013 15:11

Re: How Important Are SRW To LRW Designs?

Postby Whitecold on Sun 04 Dec 2016 01:58

A bit more passives can't hurt. The next two passive techs give a massive improvement in effectiveness (50%, resp. 33%) so the 13% can well be low with 1st gen passives.
If you go build some ships with combined Fa+Ra, you might consider building a few with all the HS from the Fa replaced by passives and mixing those in to confuse the enemy, as from the LRW fire he won't be able to differentiate.
Whitecold
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri 19 Sep 2014 15:03

Re: How Important Are SRW To LRW Designs?

Postby PracticalM on Sun 04 Dec 2016 14:15

I don't generally put SRW on a LRW ship. DDs at the start are the LRW platform so I keep CTs with SRW and DDs with LRW.

Sometimes I roll on the NPR design table if I want to shake it up. But then I tried started with G as my starting SRW weapon (don't do it) because sometimes you have to do odd things.
--
Jeffrey Kessler
PracticalM
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed 15 Jul 2009 10:27
Location: Long Beach, CA

Re: How Important Are SRW To LRW Designs?

Postby SDTroll on Sun 04 Dec 2016 18:13

PracticalM wrote:But then I tried started with G as my starting SRW weapon (don't do it) because sometimes you have to do odd things.


What is bad about starting with G? I have read multiple times it is, but don't get to play so I've never found out why.
SDTroll
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon 01 Mar 2010 13:09

Re: How Important Are SRW To LRW Designs?

Postby Cralis on Mon 05 Dec 2016 03:51

SDTroll wrote:
PracticalM wrote:But then I tried started with G as my starting SRW weapon (don't do it) because sometimes you have to do odd things.


What is bad about starting with G? I have read multiple times it is, but don't get to play so I've never found out why.


The primary "problem" with G is that it doesn't have very good to-hits over it's already short range. It's great for close-in WP defenses, but like Pg, suffers (by comparison to other SRW) pretty much everywhere else. And it doesn't have any skipping.

But it does pack a whallop and it's great for bombardment. Especially Gc and Gh. But player's play styles generally work better with the other types of SRW; thus the reason players give the warning.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10195
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: How Important Are SRW To LRW Designs?

Postby Whitecold on Mon 05 Dec 2016 13:35

G is also the only SRW that is subject to intercepts. If you want to have a very short damage dealer, you can pick Pg, though you need to open up Pt for that, meaning it is your second SRW option anyway.
Whitecold
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri 19 Sep 2014 15:03

Re: How Important Are SRW To LRW Designs?

Postby procyon on Thu 08 Dec 2016 02:22

SCC wrote:For passive defenses I've put in the suggested about of 13% in A and S combined, to wit 2 of each, are you saying that's not enough?


It is pretty close to what my players look at for a starting DD-Ra x4. They usually have 4-5 HS in passives at the start of the game.

And they almost never mix SRW and LRW in a design. It just means that in a LRW fight you are at a disadvantage against a pure LRW design, and in a SRW fight you are at a very big disadvantage against a pure SRW design. And unless you have a huge speed advantage (not likely early game with a DD), you aren't going to be able to force an opponent into a range he doesn't want to be at.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: How Important Are SRW To LRW Designs?

Postby SCC on Thu 08 Dec 2016 04:27

I've been giving this some more thought recently and am leaning towards the following changes:

  • Switch the Mg out for Mgs and Hs
  • Drop the SRW
  • Put in two extra S
  • One extra A
  • Xa
  • And one Ia
That last will give it some cushioning against losing an engine room when operating at speed 3 for prolonged periods.

On a related note, what is the exact ruling for speeds with a half speed (Like FG) operating half a speed higher for long periods? For example if I gave a FG 4 Ia could it operate at speed 3 on the strategic scale without problems? Technically it's tactical speed is 5.5, and half of that is 2.75, which rounds up (2.5 on the other hand does not)
SCC
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 739
Joined: Fri 08 Mar 2013 15:11

Next

Return to Solar Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron