Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through March 14, 2005	25		03/14 09:03am

Starfleet Battles is a big game, and adding a new rule always has the problem that you need to research it to try (note, TRY) to make sure you have covered all of its possible interactions with other rules.

Please note that the fact that I dropped in here and took a little time to do a "fast and sloppy" review does not mean that this rule will be accepted and published. All it means is that I dropped in and did a "fast and sloppy" look at the proposed rule.

Even if you drop the FA arc restriction, you will still need to cover Wild PF Scouts (in case the target of the scatter pack was a PFT, or a PF in its flotilla) and Wild SWACS. By this I do not mean the simple "well duh, when the unit goes wild the scatter pack and its drones will chase it", but the "the unit stopped being wild while the scatter pack still had drones to launch". This is important in part because when the unit stops being wild, if the scatter pack switched back to "normal tracking", the target might now be outside of its "release range". (Of course, if you tried to keep the FA restriction, the target might now not be in its FA arc, and of course when the Scout PF or the SWACS went wild, they might have been outside of the FA arc.)

David Lang:

Ballistic Scatter Packs stop when their launch conditions are met, just as normal Scatter Packs do. In order for it not to stop, rule (F4.4) would have to have a specific statement that a ballistic scatter pack continues moving after release of its submunitions as an exception to (FD7.415).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 11:41 am: Edit

Michael John Campbell:

Ahem, ever notice how admin shuttles are not able to control seeking weapons . . . at all?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 12:01 pm: Edit

If it is not obvious (and yes, I realize I should have clearly stated it), what should be done is to look at the rules and concepts I have already noted, resolve those issues, and then take the time to try to think through and find the other possible interactions that I may have overlooked in the above. As I noted, what I first posted was just a "fast and sloppy" review, there is no warranty that I caught every question that should be answered (note that I have since added the need to cover the SWACS and Wild Scout PF items). I also know that last night something else was bouncing around inside my head . . . at least I think something else was, it might have been something that was already covered and I just did not remember that it had been, or it could be something else that needed to be covered.

Maybe it was "what happens if a Heel Nipper is fired at your shuttle after it starts launching drones?", but I have not actually checked the rules to see if that even needs an answer (and even if it did, the answer would probably not be needed if the FA launch restriction was dropped).

In any case, it makes the point that the rule needs to be researched for interactions. And as part of that research you have to go through the thought process of "what if it happens before the scatter pack launches drones, what if it happens after the scatter pack has begun launching drones."

Ah, I know, remember that a scatter pack does, itself, require a control channel until it releases the drones, so obviously this scatter pack will require its own dedicated control channel until the last drone has been released.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 01:52 pm: Edit

Ok, I had ballistic SP mechanics wrong so this SP should stop when it starts launching no matter what.

I think that most (if not all) of the interactions can be dealt with by stating that the target evaluation is done by each drone at the impulse of launch. if the drone is targeted at the target of the SP and the SP is distracted by something then the drone will target that same thing.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 02:39 pm: Edit

David Lang:

Whatever is done one way or the other, the key point of the fat and sloppy look was simply to get people to look for other things as well as to fix what needs fixing just from that fast run through.

When taking a quick look, I did not (for example) go through seeing if any problems popped up if the target was an Omega ship, nor did I look at any of the various monsters. (Off the top of my head, I do not think there is a problem with any of the existing monsters that would require a special rule, but I DID NOT LOOK.)

As I noted, it is a very large and complex game, and since older rules did not envision any new rules, any new rule needs to be "self-contained" with respect to the old rules. And that, for example, means that while anyone could obviously find (or propose) a resolution to a problem/conflict, the problem/conflict still has to be found in order to be resolved.

Sure, I could try to re-write the rule, but does it not seem like a better idea to let you all see some of what goes into trying to incorporate a new rule?

Also, please note again that nothing I have said here means that SVC will adopt this rule, and nothing means he will not, that is his choice alone.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 02:26 am: Edit

Wow...I suddenly feel ever so slightly more enlightened.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 10:57 am: Edit

Michael John Campbell:

If you believe that the answer was not the information you sought, perhaps you failed to phrase the question in such manner that the information you sought was plain.

On the other hand, perhaps thou art not yet ready for "enlightenment", and must turn your hand to deeper study?

For the nonce, can we simply assume that mayhap you did not ask a question in such manner that this humble, and apparently dense, author was able to intuit and grasp the kernal of information that you sought and prevail upon you to ask it again in a somewhat clearer and more profound manner such that your desire for clarification might be gratified?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 11:21 am: Edit

Steve Petrick:

Please pardon the intrusion, but I ***think*** MJC wanted an article written in the next Captians log explaining the issues... the relevant quote seems to be:

"I'm just thinking it might make an interesting artical in a CL under the section TO ASK THE QUESTION WHY. Specifically "why isn't the shuttle's own fire control involved in the opperation of an SP?"

please note, I am not endorsing or condemning the idea, just offering an insight as to what I suspect MJC was asking for.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 06:23 pm: Edit

Yeah...I thought that statment might be taken as being sarcastic even though it was not meant to be.


Basically, I had this odd sensation on reading your responce.
Simple yet brilliant...which made it even more brilliant.


J.W.:

Well only if there was sufficent text to qualify for an artical.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 06:56 pm: Edit

MJC, yeah, I know what you mean. Petrick's done that to most of us at least once or twice. But I've never seen anyone describe the effect quite so elegently as you just did.


Garth L. Getgen

By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 03:01 am: Edit

If looking for a YIS date in the mid/late GW, you might consider the introduction of the advanced admin shuttles as the date (and/or restrict it to advanced shuttles as part of their upgrade).

I suppose you could pick any date by just not having the "accident" happen until that date...

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 10:10 am: Edit

David Kass:

I think he can pick dates well prior to the General War if he wishes. My observation about the date was only to doubt that the same year the "emergency use" of a shuttle as a scatter pack occured the first time also happened to be the same year that a scatter pack accidentally performed in this manner to trigger the technological development. There is no reason it has to be tied to "advanced shuttles" or to the development of drone-armed fighters as someone else suggested (although in one aspect that makes a little more sense). It could, for example, be tied to MRS shuttles (Y150) if you had to tie it to something, and was the result of an early use of an MRS as a scatter pack. (No, I am NOT requiring that this be done.) It could also have had nothing to do with any technological developments and was simply something that developed. I do, however, have doubts that anyone would have found this use of a scatter pack particularly useful during the period of slow and moderate speed drones, but that is an opinion on my part.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:53 pm: Edit

I actually think this method of SP is better for slower (8/12) drones. Except when launched point blank, these slow drones, in EY or otherwise, tend to do better when staggered, 1-2 per hex, to make it more difficult for opponents to fly around them. Having the ability to create a line of 3 stacks of 2 drones is therefore a very useful ability pre-Y167.

By Barton Pyle (Bart) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 08:49 pm: Edit

Revised rule: 3rd attempt.

(FD22.0) THE STAGGERED SCATTERPACK: During a battle in Y128 a SP was launched and during the firing procedure there was a malfunction in the shuttles firing mechanism which caused the drones to be launched 1 at a time. It ended up being very effective in that particular situation and thus became a combat technology alternative.

(FD22.1) A staggered scatterpack uses the same rules as a scatterpack shuttle as described in FD7.0 with the following exceptions listed here.
(FD22.11) Multi-warhead drones use the regular scatterpack drone system (FD7.3) and cannot use staggered release.

(FD22.2) The staggered scatterpack can not use F4.0 ballistic targeting.
(FD22.21) The staggered scatterpack can not use FD7.34 random targetting.

(FD22.22) Release: At the MW release step (Seeking Weapon Stage ( 6B6 ) of the impulse activity segment) of the impulse of the release conditions are fulfilled, the drones will begin release.
(FD22.221) Once the staggered scatterpack begins release, it will continue to do so until it depletes its drone supply. Unless the target is less then 2 hexes away or beyond 35 hexes. For Example: A staggered scatterpack is targeted on a klingon D7. It is programmed to start its release at a range of 15 in mode #1. The D7 closes to a range of 15, the staggered scatterpack starts its release. The D7 then moves to a range of 16 on the following impulse and the staggered scatterpack will continue its preprogramed release schedule.

(FD22.23) Modes of Release: Prior to launching, the owning player must record one of four rates at which the drones are released from the staggered scatterpack.

Mode #1: One drone is launched every impulse until the drone supply is exhausted.

Mode #2: One drone is launched one every two impulses until the drone supply is exhausted.

Mode #3: One drone is launched one every three impulses until the drone supply is exhausted.

Mode #4: One drone is launched one every four impulses until the drone supply is exhausted.

(FD22.24) Prior to launching the owning player must record the order in which the drones are launched from the staggered scatterpack.

(FD22.25) Premature Release: If the staggered scatterpack receives enough damage equal to the premature release trigger level (FD7.31) but less then enough to destroy it, the drones are released acording to the predetermined mode of release (FD22.23).

(FD22.26) Wild Weasel Interaction: Any drones launched from a staggered scatterpack during the explosion period of an unvoided wild weasel, will accept the wild weasel as their target as per (J3.21111).
(FD22.261) Any drones launched from a staggered scatterpack during the post-explosion period of a wild weasel, will ignore the wild weasel as per (J3.2122).

(FD22.27) Information Gained: A successful lab attempt gains no new information other then what G4.233 provides.

A Special Thanks to the following people who have helped alot in the design of this rules proposal.

Lawrence Bergen
Jessica Orsini
William Soder
David Kass
Steve Petrick
and everyone who has posted here.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 09:14 pm: Edit

Bart, what is your reasoning for ignoring SPP's point #5 and limiting the launch modes? (I'm not saying that we have to do as SPP suggested, just that we need some explination for not doing so)

what happens if the target hits range 2? (range 30 it looses it's tracking per the normal rules, range 2 is undefined)

By Barton Pyle (Bart) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 09:46 pm: Edit

As for #5, its for play balance. Kinda like why the ISC can't fire all their rear F's at one ship in one turn. I'm not going to try and technobabble why.

What happens to a normal sp at range 2? It would be the same.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 09:49 pm: Edit

a normal SP with it's target inside of range 2 will not start it's launch sequence. and it never defines what would happen if it moved that close during a launch sequence as that case can never happen.

By Barton Pyle (Bart) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Can you please reword that David. You lost me... It could be that I'm tired too.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 10:28 pm: Edit

IIRC the rules for a normal scatterpack are that it will not launch if the target is within 2 hexes, but it continues tracking it's target and launches as soon as it clears the 2 hex range (all other things being equal)

this equates to the trigger to start launching for the delayed scatterpack

what's left undefined is what happens if you launch your first drone at range 3 and the target ship moves towards the SP and overruns it

the choices are

1. it launches anyway

2. the drone it would launch is lost

3. the launch sequence pauses until the target leaves the 2 hex range

By Barton Pyle (Bart) on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 07:56 am: Edit

ok, I see what your getting at now. Let me give it some thought and I'll fix that little oversite.

Thx David

By Richard K. Glover (Fahrenheit) on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 10:13 am: Edit

or option

4. the launch sequence counts down until the next drone is elligible to be fired, and then enters a "hold" pattern until the target is no longer withing 2 hexes of the SSP, at which point the drone launches during the normal SOP.

e.g. you have an "every 3 imps" rate; target is 5 hexes away, moving speed 16 when the initial launch sequence starts.

Imp 1: Range 5. First drone is launched.
Imp 2: Range 4. delay_count=1 (target moved closer)
Imp 3: Range 4. delay_count=2
Imp 4: Range 3. delay_count=3; 2nd Drone Launched. (target moved closer)
Imp 5: Range 3. delay_count=1
Imp 6: Range 2. delay_count=2 (target moved closer)
Imp 7: Range 2. delay_count=3, No Launch - target is too close.
Imp 8: Range 2. delay_count=3, No Launch - target is too close. (target side-slipped)
Imp 9: Range 2. delay_count=3, No Launch - target is too close.
Imp 10: Range 3. delay_count=3; 3rd Drone Launched (target turned away).

By Richard K. Glover (Fahrenheit) on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 10:24 am: Edit

(FD22.26) is ambiguous enough that one could argue that any drones launched would target ANY WW on the map during it's explosion period of (any range, by any unit, enemy or friendly).

By Barton Pyle (Bart) on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Richard, I don't see how this is ambiguous. Its the standard ww rules. I didn't change anything there. All I did was refer to the appropriate rule to answer SPP's question.

By Richard K. Glover (Fahrenheit) on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 12:59 pm: Edit

It's that it doesn't specify that the WW in question is one that the SSP is currently targeting.

"...during the explosion period of an unvoided wild weasel, will accept the wild weasel as their target..."

I see the "an unvoided wild weasel" as being ambiguous. Maybe I'm reading too little into it.

By William Curtis Soder (Ghyuka) on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 09:37 pm: Edit

Richard,
The rule works if you reference the Wild Weasel rule of J3.2111 (he mistakely gave it an extra 1)since it states the protected ship. He simply didn't rewrite the rule but referred to it so that it would explain how staggered scatterpacks would interact with a wild weasel on the board.