[madkillercat]

Originally posted by JLS:
MDC,
I received an E-Mail from a Player: Perhaps we could discuss raising the Destroyer 5% to hit and redo the CL through BC to achieve a clear edge for the se4 Cruiser so it may be conducive to build and contribute to our fleets.

What are your thoughts to achieve a more conducive AIC Cruiser?

If simulator results don't push it too far ahead of smaller OR larger hulls. Also, by raising Destroyer Off+ by 5% you start a trend where every other hull size has better Off+ than the previous hull size--like a zig-zag line.

Making the CA a better contributor is not so simple as your design objectives include hull-non-obselesence. Obtainity parity between the LC - BC range while maintaining the upper and lower ranges will be difficult. Some factors to keep in mind:

Hull Off+ and hull Def+ follow a consistant trend from the DD through heavy baseship range. To simplify balance testing, hold one constant, and only twek the other.
e.g. holding Def+ constant. With each hull size, the increase is KT becomes more significant. So too high Off+ gives a significant margin of superiority to heavier hulls, and can make smaller one obsolete. Coupled with smaller mounts/less Off-, a large hull with many small mount but accurate weapons becomes unbalancing.

Movement is also dangerous due to KT increases between classes. Your larger hulls are generally becoming even larger and speeding them up noticably will improve those large hulls too much. Likewise, minimal changes do little good since max movement is 9+/-1.

Hull KT shifting of CL - BC is also difficult since there is little shifting possible due to hulls above and below that range. Any changes to hull KT will require changes to Off/Def and movement. Complexity make KT changes prohibitive without extensive testing.

One approach is to come up with a rationale for ships in that size range. There already is one for the scout through frigate hulls. The escort being hard to hit, and the frigate being fast. Come up with some role for the hull that is consistant within the world you have created.
e.g. fast BC's sacrifice some hull intregity/ECM+ to be able to bring in heavy weapons.
e.g. CA's "armored" by good ECM/Def+ protect transport throughfares from hit-and-run enemy attacks.
I don't know how you are playing your campaigns so you'll come up with better rationales than I can.

Originally posted by JLS:
MDC,
Madkillercat it does not look like the budge is going to happen for a strict relationship of numbers for the Scout, Escort and Frigate.
I truly wish this was not an obstacle with you, it is only a base for a platform we can build from with se4 Components and in the end design it could be what is desired.

Obstacle? I don't care whether or not it is changed--SE4 is just a game and AIC just a mod. You have a rationale for for the change, sounds fine to me. We just differ in WHY we think such changes were made.

Timeline:

I mentioned a bulge.
You said hull flexibility, etc.
I said no, it's weak AI.
You said hull flexibility, etc.
You also said...I'm not sure what you said about the void and math not be real.
I said, weak AI.
You said (above) let's change the subject.