| By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 04:34 am: Edit |
I really can't see the point of putting skids with fighters on a freighter.
I mean - suppose I was a security van driver. Most of the time, I deliver sony playstations to the various game stores, and that's fairly safe. However, once every three months, I have a contract where I move millions of dollars from the mint to a Bank's HQ.
Now, I don't go and buy myself a machine gun to do that trip. I don't upgrade my van to a maximum armoured variey.
I hire a butch bodyguard with said big gun from the appropriate place just for that one trip. Better still, I pay the police to escort me.
Exactly the same would occur in space. You don't beef up your freighter for the big runs - you pay the police or team up with someone who has an armed freighter. More likely still, it's the guy with the armed freighter who's doing the run because they could put in a cheaper quote (only running one ship and not having to modify it).
And if the cargo is *really really* important, the military will be doing the job with a proper tug and frigate escort. After all, those tugs must be doing something all that time while at peace - the military is quite capable of contracting civilian sources for the mundane stuff, leaving thier tugs to move no just the critical military hardware, but also critical economic cargos.
| By Ken Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 08:34 am: Edit |
2 points:
1. Pirates of today are active. 10-20 ships per year are taken by pirates. Some ships are hijacked and the entire crew killed. Most only lose the captain/officers cause the crew is ether in league with the pirates or doesn't care who gets the cargo as long as they get paid. So I think MJC is right that occasionally you will have this happen to frieghters.
2. David S. actually made an argument FOR skids with fighters. Skids are not a permanent change to the freighter (unlike ducktails) but are attached to the command modual like a cargo pod.
A skids with fighters would probably be much like the butch bodyguard with a big gun that rides along for extra security.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 09:14 am: Edit |
Quote:Either they are common so there is a decent chance that I will have rescue coming,
OR
They are uncommon, so I should be paranoid of tac intel traces.
Quote:or that the Dread Pirate Campbell (my term as I cannot keep in mind what you dubbed him)
Quote:at some point the cargo becomes valuable enough to justify "upgunning" the freighter.
...If the cargo justifies the added defenses, then those defenses should be present.
Quote:Plus, if I were an Orion and I saw an independent freighter armed that way I'd nuke it on general principles to discourage other freighters from doing this
| By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 09:22 am: Edit |
Well, if the skids are easy to put on and remove, that helps. I guess each SB would then have a branch of a skid hire company rather like we hire cars today.
The problem is that the skid and fighters are ineffectual. 4 Zorans arn't going to mean that a small freighter beats an LR. Seeing as 98% of the time, the LR will have all the time in the world as discussed, the extra security has done ziltch except cause a few more deaths on the freighter side.
You need something that means that the freighter(s) will beat or fend off at least half of your lone pirate raiders - definately beat an LR, and have a good chance against a DW/CR. This means that you need around 90BPV total, maybe a tad more.
At that point, you are looking minimum at an armed large freighter with skids that hold at least 6 fighters, some of which will need heavy weapons (i.e. Z-Ds). That kind of deterrent will have a reasonable chance of doing an internal on an LR, which will probably mean that the pirate won't take the risk. More likely, you are looking at a Large Q-ship with skids - all assuming that this is a small, high value cargo (therefore prime pirate target)only needing one freighter.
I guess what I'm saying is that you need something that will BEAT the pirate, not something that will merely mean it takes him 10SFB turns to beat you as opposed to 2.
There is one other consideration here. I am assuming that the freighter cannot disengage by acceleration. If it can, then this is a whole new ball game. With 4 Zorans, you may be able to keep the LR far enough away for the freighter to have time to disengage. The Zorans would of course get destroyed, but I imagine that the pilots would be picked up later in their escape pods.
| By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 09:44 am: Edit |
I can see these skids being more effective on armed freighters than standard ones. A Large Armed freighter with a pair of these skids (4 fighters) would give most pirates a serious pause.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 09:56 am: Edit |
Quote:I guess what I'm saying is that you need something that will BEAT the pirate, not something that will merely mean it takes him 10SFB turns to beat you as opposed to 2.
| By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 11:04 am: Edit |
MJC. Large freighters do have tractor beams and shuttles; some have their own drone racks
| By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 11:29 am: Edit |
And the LR+ won't have more than ~2-3 of those IV armoured drones as they will hit the availability limits. Besides, any defending fighters from skids will launch their type I/VIs if the Orion plays that game.
Nah - the LR that the frighters fear will be the one with photons. It loads up at range ~25+ and then comes in to take an O/L R8 potshot, runs off, and then rinses and repeats. Proxies would be a tactic except that the (large)freighter has just enough power to brick them.
Plasma would work well also.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 12:25 pm: Edit |
Michael John Campbell: You started much of this with an assertion that an LR with one photon and two type-G drone racks would be able to take a single Large Freighter with two of these skids.
To be fair, Michael Grafton somewhat "stacked the deck" by deciding to be a Klingon and using those old Z-1s. (There are not many, if any, obsolete fighters with as much firepower as a Z-1; a phaser-2-FA, a phaser-3-RA, and two type-I drones. Most of them are at least 33% faster, but there is not a lot of difference between speed 6 and speed 8 when your attacker can run speed 31.)
The Z-1s are the best because even at Weapon Status Zero you can launch them and get four phaser-2s on the map to supplement the three phaser-2s on the freighter (two on the skids, one normally part of the freighter) and four phaser-3s on the map to supplement the two normally found on the freighter (the Phaser-3-RA and the shuttle phaser-3) even if they do not have drones on their drone rails or pods on their pod rails.
At Weapon Status III they bring the ability to launch between four and eight drones in a turn. This depends on whether or not they are manned (remote control could launch both drones), or have one type-I and one type-VI drone loaded, or two type-VIs. And they might possibly have been launched as fighter packs (this is unlikely unless the Skid brings additional drone control channels as the freighter can only contol three drones, and a fighter cannot accept control of another fighter's drone unless it is a two-seat fighter, an EWF or has a drone control pod).
Note that the fighters can launch at any speed, and in all honesty at Weapon Status III would expect Z-1s to launch at speed three. They lose one point of speed for each pod carried on a pod rail (could be EW Pods, Might be an EW pod and a Chaff Pod if they are worried about the attacker having a lot of seeking weapons) slowing them to speed four, and then another point of speed for erratic maneuvers.
Once the fighters are launched, the freighter already has its phasers charged (weapon status III, remember), can have its shuttle ready for any sort of special mission (as I have said, that includes scatter pack, but remember that the freighter only has three drone control channels unless the skids somehow magically add some, and I do not think I would be made to agree that the presence of fighters but no drone rack lets the freighter have type-IV drones). The freighter can slow to speed three (stay with the fighters) using 1.5 points of warp power, dump three more points of warp into erratic maneuvers (even a freighter can do that). Add in 2.5 points for housekeeping and you have used seven points of power (call it 4.5 warp and 2.5 APR). That leaves you 3.5 warp, 2 impulse, and .5 APR. Dump two warp and one impulse into the batteries, add the three points of battery power you are discharging back into the pool, combine it with the remaining 1.5 warp, .5 APR, 1 impulse to allow the freighter to generate six ECM.
At this point it is "Siege Perilous" for the Light Raider. He CAN win, but he is going to be adding two (at a minimum) to each shot he fires until he can reduce the freighter's EW levels. To generate the power to do that is going to require doubling the engines WAY TOO MANY TIMES as he needs to keep his speed up to out run drones if he wants to use the phasers to damage the ship or kill the fighters.
The only real problem the freighter has in this instance is the LR's scatter pack, which will require it to drop EM and give the LR its shot, but if the Freighter could scrape up a point of power somewhere it could be holding its own shuttle as a wild weasel (it would still have to drop EM). So the freighter might consider (in all seriousness) going to speed zero, i.e., the starcastle. Because what the freighter wants to do is exhaust the ability of the LR to attack, make it burn its engines, and etc.
Note that under Weapon Status III two of the fighters begin fully armed (the two special shuttles), and the other two will take two turns to fully arm (two deck crews working on each one, one loading a drone on a type-I rail while the other loads a pod on a pod rail on each of two consecutive turns).
| By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 02:31 pm: Edit |
I appreciate all the attention this topic has generated. But let me review some of the baseline "facts" of this situation...
1) Kris Kringle II (KK) has 50 spaces of valuable cargo to move. Shagistan is where I am contracted to sell it on a COD basis. At Shagistan there is a cargo for KK that I have to spend the cash I get for my cargo to pay for. The weary donkey has contracts to move cargo to KK from somewhere else, THIS CARGO to Shagistan, SHAGISTANS CARGO to KK, and then another cargo to somewhere else. (like these are the “factory seconds” fruitcakes, whatever)
2) This cargo is very important KK, Shagistan, some individual corporations and the local NG for reasons explained in the back story..
3) The police have NOT agreed to escort this cargo, despite requests. Nor have the DSF. For whatever reason the cargo is not being carried by a Q ship/ armed freighter/ surplus tug/ LTT…
4) A large freighter will lose 99.99999999% of hte time if it tries to fight it out with a pirate.
5) The planet is especially nervous because the LAST cargo was taken in it's entity. KK absolutely depends on this cargo getting through and the machines it pays for getting back.
6) Defense skids are the available to rent to help secure especially valuable cargos. As noted in the SFU text, armed freighters are mostly GOVERNMENT owned.
7) The crew of this skid are NATIONAL GUARDSMEN aboard for a short, 1 week each way trip. Call the cargo aged Klingon Bloodwine, Fruitcake or Unobtanium crystals, Ginsu brand loknars, what ever... I just liked calling it fruitcake. KK provided these guys and fighters from their PDU, and the Shagistan merchants are renting the skid.
8) I postulated that there are several different kinds of skids available for use for a nominal rent fee (but a hefty deposit). Fighter, Phaser, Drone whatever.
fighter, 2 fighters, P2, apr, btty, cargo
Phaser 2 phaser 2, 2 apr, 1 btty, 1 hull
Drone P2, apr, btty, drone A, Add...
MJC said heck no, my lr could take a Large freighter with 4 fighters on a couple of skids.
He wanted a photon and 2 g racks.
MY BASIC premise is that there should be a way to defend cargos BETWEEN using a regular defenseless freighter and packing the stuff aboard a few q ships/ tugs/ whatever.
I don’t think a large armed freighter is going to hold off an LR all that long either. Not enough shields to stop heavy weapon strikes (photon/disr/plas F) nor fast enough to get away.
So logically there should be a ship between a Large Q ship (carries 20 cargo) and Large freighter (carries 50 cargo). A large armed freighter is not all that well armed, it’s main firepower comes in its pack mentality.
A defense skid or 2 should make LR intercepts more iffy for raiders (and thus less attractive) on my 50 cargo boxes.
Besides, while a LR might only steal 1 ½ boxes of cargo, what if I get raided by a slaver or free traitor?
AND YEP, zorans are about the perfect freighter defense fighter. Or maybe a few plasma D armed ones. Or a few A-6s.
The basic premise “Digger” has to operate under is that my rescue is going to arrive eventually. Otherwise he would stay at range and shoot potshot Photons and Phaser 1 volleys until I called uncle. In infinite time a LR should be able to whip just about any type of civilian cargo hauler.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 03:56 pm: Edit |
Now, Weapon Status 0 is another matter. Say the freighter is loping along at speed six, and spots an approaching Light Raider. It takes no deck crew actions to charge the shuttle as a wild weasel, but the suicide shuttle option is probably out (at least a fully charged one). There is no reason to have fire control on Turn #1 (unless you have convinced the government to give you remote control fighters), as you have no operable weapons, so do not power it. That means you need 1.5 points for housekeeping, but even this think about. If the Orion will not reach a range where he has a good chance of doing more than five points of damage, only raise the shields to minimum level. That cuts your housekeeping on Turn #1 to only a point. Decide if a speed increase will do you any good. If it will, I mean really will, like delay the enemy reaching an effective range until another turn, then go for it, otherwise consider slowing down to conceal your energy. (Maybe the freighter IS arming a suicide shuttle?) If it is the start of a Turn (Energy Allocation), allocate the point, but if it is mid-turn, consider if you will have time to arm the phasers on the turn after next, and if not, dump a point of battery to warm the capacitors so you can arm the phasers next turn.
Deck crews will need to concentrate on what you think best. Either load one drone on each fighter, or one pod on each fighter, or two drones on two fighters, or two pods on two fighters, or one drone and one pod each on two fighters, or any possible combination (load a pod on one fighter, a pod and a drone on one fighter, a drone on the third fighter, and nothing on the fourth fighter, etc.). Whatever you think best for your circumstance.
With a half point in shields, a half point in life support, a point to warm phaser capacitors, five points into movement, you will have six points remaining. 1.5 points will run your erratic maneuvers (no reason not to go erratic, and every reason to at this juncture, i.e., you have the power and you do not want to get hit if you can avoid it even at first). Now, that 4.5 points that remains is only 1.5 warp, but it is something to start arming a suicide shuttle (not that you will, but it is an option). The remaining three points at this time can be used to reinforce the facing shield, or to provide enough ECM to guarantee a one shift against any Orion long range fire.
Turn #2 gets bad because you have more energy needs. If the Orion is close or going to reach effective weapons range, then you have to go to full shields. (It was nice to play mind games, was it not, i.e., have him guessing just why your shields were on minimum?) You are going to need 3.5 points of power to fully arm the phasers, and may have to go to active fire control (or you may keep active fire control on standby if you did not use erratic maneuvers so that you can now benefit, at least for a bit, from the passive fire control bonus . . . decisions, decisions). That leaves you 9.5 points of power (and maybe less if you needed to use a battery last turn). Again the question of erratic maneuvers (if you are planning to launch fighters, maybe not . . . but then you could drop EM before launching, or assume it after launching). Thing is you only had one turn of deck crew actions on the fighters at the start of this turn, and it takes four turns to get all four of them fully ready (two type-I drone spaces and two pods), but you are in bind and may have to put them out at less than full effectiveness. Without the EW pods they are easier to kill (the Orion does not have to generate a lot of ECCM), but without drones they are not as much of a threat. (Except Michael Grafton was, as noted, stacking the deck wtih those Z-1s . . . 12 damage points, or eight to cripple, and a phaser-2 and phaser-3 as opposed to the single phaser-3 of most of the obsolete fighters he pretty much said would be used by this skid).
Again, decisions, decisions.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 05:57 pm: Edit |
I don't get the problem. Maybe I'm just misreading the whole thing (very possible...many of the posts are just too darn long to wade throught), but as I understand it Mike Grafton is positing that:
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 06:10 pm: Edit |
I thought some things had already been discussed?!?
For instance, isnt S5 level of information range 100 hexes?
And did "the Dread Pirate Campbell" specify that he was making a stern approach?
ANd did MCG not specify that he was making maximum speed AWAY from the unidentified contact approaching from the rear?
IF (and I may have misunderstood, this, please correct me I am in error) the Orion Lr starts turn 0 impulse 32 at 101 hex range from the Large freighter weary Donkey (with those fighter skids and 4 Zoran Fighters) (say in direction "A") Said Weary Donkey making speed 17 in direction "D"... (the net speed difference between the max speeds of the 2 ships being (31-17=14)in a stern chase situation would be 7 turns for the pirate to over haul the Freighter.
if the range starts at 32 hex range, then the situation would be:
(32-14=18) ranage after 1 turn
(18-14=4) range after 2 turns.
The two situations are a world of difference for the ships involved... if the Freighter were able t "spot" the Orion LR at range 100, 7 turns of preparation would give the Fighter Deck crews opportunity ample to fully arm the fighters AND begin prepping a scatter pack for service.
If the Orion 100% of the time gets to surprise any freighter and all such encounters must begin at range 32... it would have a major advantage over the merchants.
I know this is not the first time this has been asked, but what is the range at which a freighter can identify an Orion as an Orion pirate?
In this scenario, it makes a huge difference in the starting conditions and positions.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 07:34 pm: Edit |
Mike Raper:
For one thing you are making an apples and oranges comparison. Float planes carried by battleships and cruisers were not there to fighters or bombers, they were there to be SPOTTERS, i.e., to help the battle ship or cruiser adjust the fall of its shot to increase the chances of a hit. They did not fly down and engage enemy torpedo planes, nor did they dive bomb enemy ships (some did drop bombs, but I cannot honestly recall if any ever scored a hit or made a successful straffing attack for that matter). They were very lightly armed, and the weight of their floats made their chances of survival in a fight with a real fighter problematic at best.
There was a brief time in World War II where the United Kingdom was so desperate they mounted a few fighters on launchers with rocket assist onto freighters. The idea being that the fighter could be launched to try to fend off German bombers, after which the pilot would bail out (there being no way to land back aboard the freighter) and be picked up. They were called "CAM" ships for "Catapult Armed Merchantman". A fast search says that here were 35 converted for the purpose, eight actually launched their fighter, one pilot was lost, and 12 of the CAM freighters were lost "due to enemy action".
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 07:45 pm: Edit |
SPP,
I didn't say they were the same, just that the concept reminded me of it (i.e., ships carrying supplemental aircraft that aren't really made for it.) I still maintain it's a reasonable enough proposal, and don't quite get why there is so much controversy around the whole thing.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 08:36 pm: Edit |
Jeff Wile:
I am certain I have answered this several times before.
1.) A given Orion might approach several merchantmen over a period of time. His goal is to get as close as possible before he "pounces", not unlike a Tiger or many other predators. During some of these approaches, he is spotted, and if he figures out that he has been spotted while too far away to effectively pounce, he leaves. To aid him in this is that he has the advantage of "warship" sensors versus the freighter's "PF" sensors (in terms of Tactical Intelligence), enabling him to see his prey at twice the range the prey can see him, maneuver himself into position along the prey's course, and take maximum advantage of any "environmental factors" to mask his approach. This is added to his stealth, and nimble hull. He will generally know he has been spotted when the freighter does something, i.e., accelerates or turns away and accelerates, and in either case sends an SOS.
2.) If the Orion gets close enough to pounce, he will basically send a low powered message to the freighter to "Stand and Deliver". If the freighter does, the usual response will be to take what the Orion wants (an LR can only grab 75 spaces of cargo), and then be on his way. If the freighter chooses to fight (and fight includes trying to run and calling for help when the Orion has reached a range to pounce) the Orion is likely to not treat the crew as gently. The freighter will be shot up, the Orion will have had to expend additional resources, and . . . well you made him mad.
3.) An Orion might try to pounce from longer ranges, i.e., under normal conditions a freighter that turned away and started running and sending calls for help might be seen as something to get away from, but this Orion has not made a score in a week or so, and decides to push his luck purusuing the freighter.
4.) MOST but not all of the time neither the Orion or the Freighter will have any idea how soon help will get there. Fleet units and police ships are not going to broadcast their locations to every freighter with updated position reports and itineraries for their patrols. If they did that, everyone would know where they were and the Orion would have an easier time picking out who to attack and taking his time doing so (and enemy raiders would have an easier time slipping deeper into the Empire). He would be able to pounce from much greater range, and any defenses on the freighter could be worn down more efficiently. So the Orion always wants to do his business as quickly as possible. The cargo rules make transferring that 75 spaces of cargo to fill an LR's bay time consuming. And that is only an LR. Picture how long it would take to fill the 150 spaces on a CR or the 200 spaces on a Salvage Cruiser.
5.) Freighters do NOT travel at the their top speeds. No ship does without some other compelling reason than simply moving from place to place. The freighter would move at its most economical speed. And a freighter spotting an Orion and starting to run is going to take some time to work up to top speed.
6.) While I think Michael Grafton has the basis for a possibly interesting story if he can get it all worked out, there are several rules interpretations that simply do not stand.
6.a.) Simply adding crew does not mean that you are never subject to surprise, i.e., being caught at a low weapon status. Michael Grafton is assuming that the added crewmen will take over some of the scanning duties thus making the ship immune to being caught at a low weapon status by an Orion. That does not fly as even cruisers with larger crews and better scanners get taken by surprise, and not just by Orion Stealth ships either. Things happen. The scanner officer on duty was diligently doing his duty and focused the scanner on some anomally and when he finally realized it was not anything dangerous and went back to the larger picture, low and behold an Orion LR was RIGHT THERE. (And maybe the Orion knew about the anomaly and counted on its distraction). There is, however, nothing wrong with it as a fictional piece, it simply is not going to become a rule that any freighter can automatically avoid ever being surprised by an Orion at close range by buying an extra crew unit of "scanner operators".
6.b.) He assumed that the simple addition of the Skids with the four fighters made the freighter a de-facto "True Carrier" thereby allowing him to have two fighters always fully loaded and ready to launch, but the fact is that he is a "casual carrier" (J4.62) and cannot have two fighters always on standby ready to launch. At higher weapon status where he is allowed to have shuttles prepared for "special missions" he can choose to have spent that resource arming the fighters, but he is not a "true carrier" for any purpose.
6.c.) He assumed that the deck crews the skids added would be IN ADDITION to the normal generic deck crews assigned to non-carriers under (J4.814), although he graciously (and it was gracious) determined that the Large Freighter only had one rather than the two the rule provides. But when you convert to being a casual carrier, the deck crews get subsumed into the deck crews for the fighters, i.e., the WYN Carcharodon Heavy Cruiser has just two deck crews, not two deck crews that work on fighters and two more deck crews to work on the admin shuttles.
6.d.) Mike has not, as of yet, indicated that he thinks the skids should bring any other "carrier" capabilities, such as making is possible for the freighter to lend EW, but as a casual carrier it cannot do that (J4.622) (and as I noted he has not tried to get them to do this). Nor has he indicated if the skid increases the ability of the freighter to control seeking weapons (and I am not inclined to allow it, but SVC might be convinced).
6.e.) Mike is using the presence of "drone-armed fighters" to load a scatter pack on a ship not normally allowed to purchase drones for such a use at all under the Commander's Options. I have indicated that I would see this to be legal if the skid was legal, but I have qualms about skids being used to convert freighters into "Modular Warships." It is not just the use of the skid on the standard normal large freighter, it is also the added capability to large Armed-freigthers that I am concerned about.
6.f.) Mike is endeavoring to make his case by using the best of the obsolete fighters in terms of weapons loadout. If he was a Federation freighter he would be working either with F-4s or F-8s, both of which have only a single phaser-3 (similar thing if it was a Kzinti AAS) to help the freighter, not the phaser-2 of and phaser-3 of the Z-1. And of course the Z-1 is a harder to kill (if slower) than those fighters.
6.g.) Mike is trying to slip around the rules limiting the numbers of drones and other hardware carried by a casual carrier for its fighters as given in (J4.621) by adding a cargo box to the skid that he could fill with other supplies to support the fighters.
6.h.) Having added the skid, and the drone armed fighters, I am reluctant to allow him to purchase type-IV drones solely for the use in a scatter pack. He has not to this point mentioned such use, but it is one of those gray areas. Without a fighter to operate a type-IV, I cannot justify allowing their purchase.
7.) I will note again I have no problem with Mike continuing his story from this point, but it does not establish any rules nor does it mean that I think his skid is a good idea for the game as a whole.
8.) I will note that in his background he is calling for the skid to be equipped with fighters from a planetary defense unit, and will be interested in the scene where the Commander of the Planetary Defense Unit is court martialed when the planet was attacked while 33% of its fighters were "detached" to guard a freighter. Basically this is a rules violation given that PDU fighters are allowed to defend their PDU, and can only go to ships if the PDU is itself destroyed. So he is NOT getting these from any PDU national guard unit as a general rule, it is just a background for his story.
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 09:36 pm: Edit |
SPP,
There really isn't a wet navy example of merchant ship using fighters to combat pirates. The CAM freighters were an anti-sub effort, which lead to to some freighters being converted to aux carriers.
The current SFB fighters really don't work very well on freighters, given all the rule restrictions. If a fighter SKID is developed why not develop fighter specificly for this (demil older versions) application with a few new rules to make it work. This is a an idea for a solution, not a completed concept.
| By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 01:24 am: Edit |
JRC: If you include all raiders in the list not merely those operating outside a military service, the number of freighters operating small numbers of aircraft for defensive purposes increases.
The CAM carried a catapult launched fighter designed to chase away enemy recon planes. The Merchant Aircraft Carriers were closer to what is being proposed. The 20 MACs were cargo vessels with a flight deck placed on top to operate 3 or 4 aircraft.
Even closer to the self-escorting freighter that operated planes (well, autogyros) were the Akitsu Maru class operated by the Imperial Japanese Army which escorted convoys, operated alone, and even conducted shore bombardment and shore landings.
Should one lose the focus on aircraft, about 100 years ago, it was common to expect commerce raiders to deploy torpedo support craft. In order to counteract that, there were proposals to include MTB launch facilities on freighters for defense. Difficulty in launching from the hurriedly rigged derricks plus a lack of surface raiders precluded operational testing of the concept.
The historical precendence exists. SFB fighters are easier to use than the historical counterparts. I still doubt the effectiveness of adding fighters to freighters operating alone. The fighter equipped Q-ships are not often successful. Whatever pirates do to keep freighters comfortable as the pirate approaches will hamper effective fighter preparation and often result in capture of both cargo and fighters.
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 01:51 am: Edit |
Richard,
Take a look at the bomber history article in CL31. The HTS has a bomber kit (B-25) or a conversion B-26; both have 4xTypeI drones. The B-26 adds a PH-3; YIS 160, speed 6, damage 12, DFR 0. These would work in both the ducktail or LASH SKID. The bomber kits retain 2/3rds of the cargo capacity, could be added in hours. Now just need a kit for an admin shuttle.
I don't doubt your historical information. It was interesting
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 03:55 am: Edit |
Quote:Sounds reasonable, both in concept and in execution. Now, am I missing something here?
| By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 07:15 am: Edit |
MJC. Difference is, an Armed Freighter is a permanent conversion. A small merchant company with 12 freighters could buy one set of Fighter skids for just the most dangerous route. The Skids could be added at the same time the cargo is. Remember too that Armed Freighters will have a higher maintenance cost than standard ones (larger warp engines, etc.) so having a freighter cost more 100% of the time, espcially when you have to have multiple freighters at this level is a different investment paradigm than having a set of skids that can bring a standard freighter to a defensive level approaching an armed freighter.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 01:27 pm: Edit |
The difference is that an Armed Freighter has weapons to fight off the raider while it moves to disengage. Armed Freighters CAN DISENGAGE BY ACCLERATION (see the SSDs if you do not believe me). This ability together with their weapons makes them harder nuts for an Orion to crack, and not a target for a light raider at all, at least not the large ones.
A Large Armed-freighter moving at speed 6 would take five turns to work up to disengagement speed. Since it can disengage with half its warp power (as any other ship able to disengage by acceleration), any damage to the warp engines less than nine points simply means it can disengage sooner.
Up to the point where it is disengaging, its weapons are simply intended to make it harder for the Orion to get close and stay close without risking a down shield and internals.
Do not confuse the mission of the solitary armed freighter with that of the armed freighter serving as a pseudo escort in a convoy where it is expected to fight and do all it can to protect the convoy rather than runaway and save itself.
As to the observation that fighters are basically interchangeable with shuttles because they are not the same thing as modern fighter, wrong. If the observation were correct, there would (still) be a rule allowing players to replace admin shuttles with fighters on regular warships. There is no such rule. Fighters either work from dedicated carriers, or from large ships able to devote resources to care for a few of them (Superhawk Command Cruiser, WYN Carcharodon CAs, a few DNs), or from ships that are of such an operationally restricted range that fighters can be easily replaced (Many WYN ships). The only exception is the Hydrans, and even they do not put fighters on their frigates.
Frankly, the conversation to date has made me (personally) increasingly opposed to "armed skids" in general, that is to say a skid with more firepower than skids currently have (i.e., a single phaser-2). There is, ultimately, more to a skid than simply a collection of SSD boxes, and reasons why every ship in the game does not occassionally simply add another phaser to an existing phaser array in the manner in which is being proposed to add systems to skids.
While I am increasingly (and personally) opposed, I want you to note that I am NOT the guy with the final say, that is SVC, and since he adopted the skids, he may well adopt the idea of armed, even carrier, skids as well.
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 02:50 pm: Edit |
SPP,
Are you opposed to the HTS bomber kit in CL31? If so could you give a brief explanation.
| By David Slatter (Davidas) on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 04:30 pm: Edit |
If the armed freighters can disengage by acceleration, it those ships that could use the skids. A few extra fighters will buy them those 5 turns they need to disengage, at least against all but the bigger Orions.
| By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 04:52 pm: Edit |
"4 Z-1s plus two IM drones each is 40 BPV" Zorans cost 7 bpv each, for a cost of 28. Drone cost is TO UPGRADE from the assumed type 1slow drones you get for free. That is 1 extra bpv per fighter (IIRC, the cost is .5 per drone). So we are at a cost of 32. Reload upgrades are free. Plus don't I get a rebate on the Admin/ HTS I left behind?
These skids are basically a melding of a LASH and GS skid. With 2 ready racks. Who needs 6 transporters?
I included a cargo box to hold reloads, supplies, but it is not really needed, regular carriers have BULK reloads that do not apply to my proposal. Make it a hull box instead. Whatever. All I suggested was 2 complete sets of reloads, 1 pod per fighter, and room to buy some supplies. In this case, I bought 6 m speed dogfight drones. These are usable to 1) arm the zorans or 2) make a psuedo shatterpack.
As SPP mentioned (we discussed this in a seperate email long ago), I determined that the Freighter had 1 intrinsic deck crew. I get no increased control ability and CANNOT transfer drone control between fighters. The freighter CAN pick up control of 3 seekers. So I have to arm my scatter pack with a short loadout or with (atleast some) self guiding seekers to use it.
Let me reiterate the contents of these skids (each)
2 Zorans in 2 shuttle boxes.
Ready racks in the shuttle boxes
2 Reloads for each fighters regular loadout.
3 crew units (2 Deck crews, 2 BPs and 1 unit doing regular crew stuff.)
1 APR
1 Btty
1 Cargo/ Hull whatever
1 Phaser 2
The ability to buy some stores. I bought 6 dogfight drones. I get 1 pod per fighter for free. Booster or Mega packs are NOT included for free.
Things I did NOT include
1) Increased seeking weapon control
2) Ability to lend ecm to the fighters
3) Launch tubes
4) More than 1 fighter being on alert at a given time.
5) remote control facilities
6) A special sensor
7) PF mech link (though, include 1 link holding a pf, 2 repair on each skid and I'd feel pretty safe... 1 skid vs a LR and 2 vs a CR. I might just get the orions to surrender)
etc ad nauseum
I JUST recieved CL 31 last night and now I think my suggestion is just a teensy glimmer of the potential of a Double LASH and Ducktailed large freighter.
OOOH, 3 of those HTS kits could put a stinging ouchy on a pirate.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |