Starfighter counts

[Raziel]

I just want to check on this one, as complaints have come up during the latest invasion.

I look at the template for a 3000m carrier.

Hangar: (Please provide the amount of fighters this submission can hold in it's hangar by count of Squadrons, which hold 12 average Starfighters. The higher your squadron count, the lower your Armament and number of Special Features should be. Bigger ships can accommodate more Armament and more Squadron Count, but will require a development thread once you pass 1,600 in length -even if generic. This submission's Max Squadron Count: 10, with 10 being the max for a 3,000 meter ship with a low armament. Feel free to provide a list of names for your squadrons, like the notorious Red Squadron. Alternatively, you may swap squadrons for Vehicles or other items of note, or even provide a standardized load-out.)



It suggests you may take 10 squadrons or provide a standardized load out.

10 squadrons is typically 144 fighters, with a caveat here of: "10 being the max for a 3,000 meter ship with a low armament"

However, if I go to the standardized load out chart, a 2000m command ship may carry 168 fighters, 20 gunships, 28 dropships.



It's worse at the frigate end:

This submission's Max Squadron Count: 2.

The standardised load out has 4 squadrons.


Recently people have been held to the "Max Squadron Count" in the new template. They've then complained when they see old ships. Others have been allowed to go off the "Standardised load out" because it's in the template. If people are allowed to go off this, what value do the new "Max Squadron Counts" have, if they can cram in twice as many off the old charts?


Personally, I'd be for simply removing the "Standardised load out" link from the hangar section of the new template and working off the "Max Squadron Count".

• It meshes with the new starfighter template which asks "How many per squadron"
• The max squadron counts are more sensible
• It makes subbing ships easier as you just list the squadron count, and use the new starfighter template to fill in your hangar for a given mission.

Last time it was brought up, the decision was people could use either. However, I don't believe this has been judged consistently.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

I'm not in the factory hierarchy, so what I say should not be taken as law. However, I am a keen fleeter.

Personally I think the old standardised loadouts are more fitting for the Star Wars canon, and provides a balance for the big shooty capital ships. I mean, would you rather have a 3000m ship (essentially a flagship) carrying 120 fighters, or something with a crap-ton more HVC cannons and whatever else. It's a no-brainer that you take the big ship.
Fighter amounts should be increased to give something to balance the other ships.

 

[Raziel]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

Sage advice accepted.

Time for the inevitable death scene.

 

[Seraphina Shel'tah]

My only concern with the old standardized load-outs is the subjectivity of what constitutes balanced vs support vs assault. Balanced & support are kind of a messy grey area where one could conceivably argue that their support ship has a ton of fighters but also a massive armament load-out, for whatever reason. I personally think the Max Squadron Count is both simpler, and more reasonable from the standpoint of balance.

Then again, the issue remains of the old ships where those won't be really balanced anymore, and since we don't generally force people to edit their grandfathered in ships, we're back to square one. So perhaps given that this has been a thing for so long, we leave it as is? I'm not keen on it really, but it seems that there's no real easy way to deal with the situation as it is now. Unless we want to make a poll and see what the majority of the members think? But I suspect they won't want to change it, if given the choice.

 

[Raziel]

Just as long as the judging is consistent and balanced it can stay as it is. I'd rather it was simplified though!

 

[Soliath Devin Talith]

I'd be for simply removing the "Standardised load out" link from the hangar section of the new template and working off the "Max Squadron Count".

This is what we will be doing.

While the old system might have made logistical sense, as stated by Tefka in another similar thread we are not going backward. As such we'll be taking out that part in the templates.

I will also be taking suggestions on a new better system, one that makes sense.

 

[Ellie Mors]

I will also be taking suggestions on a new better system, one that makes sense.

I suggest increasing the maximum hangar size for larger ships (only by 2 to 3 squadrons, nothing extremely huge) such as carriers, frigates, and flagships. More-so because the geometries of the maximum size of these ships holds to reason that they can hold much more fighters than we currently allow.

 

[Soliath Devin Talith]

Taken under advisement.

[member="Silara Kuhn"]

 

[Tefka]

I suggest increasing the maximum hangar size for larger ships (only by 2 to 3 squadrons, nothing extremely huge) such as carriers, frigates, and flagships. More-so because the geometries of the maximum size of these ships holds to reason that they can hold much more fighters than we currently allow.

The templates were created by averaging the number of squadrons carried on ship classes found in the wiki.

If you're going to debate it, I suggest using wiki examples, and not the standardized load-out which is player-made. I have no idea where they got their numbers from; we know exactly where I got mine, because each template has links to examples in the wiki.

I agree with removing the standardized load-out and think it's a good idea. It was only kept in the templates originally to make the transition easier and to sate the more fanatical members.