"But you would not be pulling pilots back just to play "Red Flag" during time of war. You would be pulling back experienced pilots to train new pilots"

Navy pilots, no. The local NG forces pilots, maybe.

By Alan W. Kerr (Awkerr) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 04:43 pm: Edit

Well, I'm glad I questioned the size of the skid (and what
fits in it). I didn't realize that the size was not "nailed down".

SPP:
In my jumping between different points, I never did clearly
state that I thought that 3 meters was too thin for a
skid. Hence, the "Admin would barely fit" comment...
A lot of other things seem like they would need a room bigger
than three meters across. And that's not including
the hallways that connect the various rooms (boxes on the
SSD).

JRC seems to agree and looking at the Container Box data
that he posted, it looks like 6 meters would be a good
minimum thickness. Are all skids the same thickness?
Or are there "double thick" skids? If so, maybe the LASH
is a double thick skid. It *does* seem to need the space.

Also, HOW is cargo moved around??? forklifts? micro-tractor
beams? an exo-skeleton like Ridley had in Aliens? and how much
room is needed around an Admin or an HTS for loading?

Alan

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Alan Kerr:

You are going outside my baliwick. SVC designs how things work in SFB, and tells me, and sometimes I get to question and add, but it does no good to try to convince me to change the size of a skid. You have to convince SVC and I believe that Nick Blank was working on that. For me, the rule says "three meters" so it is "Three Meters".

I do not think, nor would I support, double thick Skids as that opens a bigger can of worms than the original skids did. If you could add a double thick skid in place of a standard sized skid, and STILL not impact the movement cost and life support cost of the freighter, why wouldn't you? (Yes, BPV cost/Economic reasons might force you to go with the smaller skid, but would not everyone upgrade as soon as they could?) And if it did impact the life support cost or movement cost of the freighter adversely, what freighter captain would have one since it would clearly be cutting into the profit margin? So I personally would be adamantly opposed to the concept of double sized skids.

How cargo is moved is something that did not need a solid definition prior to Role Playing Game modules. The question will be answered there if it is answered at all.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 05:56 pm: Edit

Michael C. Grafton:

And I am just not going to buy that it would be done in time of war. And here we are talking about MAJOR WAR, not the kind of war we have going on with Terror. Diverting the resources to move pilots and planes around for what is ultimately a meaningless competition when the Empire needs ever centi-credit to defeat its enemies is simply a waste of effort. The most I can see on that score during the war is what I have already said. Basically a traveling Inspectorate or two that goes from planet to planet and evaluates the status of the defenders using computer simulations with the pilots in their cockpits and actually flying their fighters through the simulations.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Tim, it's SPP's call, but one would think that if a Q-ship is playing the part of a vulnerable freighter, it should be able to mount skids / ducktails to look more the part. No?? I can see not letting Aux Carriers and such have them, tho.


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 07:07 pm: Edit

Garth Getgen:

The Skids add that phaser-2 which makes the freighter look a little tougher than that one that does not have a skid (remember that it is TWO extra phaser-2s on a Large Freighter carrying two skids as there is no provision for only carrying one skid on a large freighter). Ducktails pretty much only matter if they are carrying something other than the expected unarmed HTS shuttle. General Skids also mean extra battery power for reinforcing shields, and actually enough battery power to "bounce" a boarding attempt one time by raising general reinforcement. If the freighter is not surprised, then not only does it have that extra phaser, but that phaser will be charged and it has an extra point of power that it is investing in some mischief (both a General Skid and a LASH skid have an APR).

The freighter that does not have skids is a weaker and more tempting target.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 12:56 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I just do not see any reason to reinvent the wheel. The Shenyang F-7 already exists.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 01:02 am: Edit

Oops.
"better" & "auxiliaries"

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 11:17 am: Edit

Michael John Campbell:

Shenyang F-7 has two "small" drone rails, i.e., it can carry type-VI (dogfight) drones. A freighter can buy an F-7 and trade in a shuttle to do so, but gets no "ready rack" or "dedicated deck crew". It has to load the type-VI drones using the Kzinti Weightlifting Team rule (J4.8962). Any type-VI drones have to be purchased, it does not come with them. Same applies to any pods you want to stick on its pod rails. To quote the rule "There are no free stores that come with the F-7."

So it is speed eight, armed with two type-VI drone rails, two 360 degree phaser-3s, two "pod" rails, and one chaff pack. It takes eight damage points to kill. It cannot carry cargo (except as per any other "fighter", i.e., small components on the pilot or gunner's lap, or in (a) cargo pod(s) carried on a (the) Pod rail(s). It cannot be used for wild weasel, suicide, or pseudo suicide missions. It could obviously be used as a scatter (fighter) pack (launching its two type-VI drones after only eight impulses rather than having to wait 16 impulses) or as a pseudo scatter pack. It cannot be used as a lab to gather information about monsters (and you cannot even buy a sensor pod to allow it to do this mission).

So, yeah, it has the ability to carry drones.

But a Large Freighter with a Ducktail and two LASH skids would have a combat BPV of 33, meaning it has 6.6 points to spend on Commander's Options. It would have four Heavy Transport Shuttles and one Admin Shuttle with a combined BPV of 26 points, and a footprint of nine shuttles. Each F-7 costs four points. Replacing one HTS shuttle with two F-7s would thus cost you two points (the F-7s cost four points each, then deduct the six points for the cost of the HTS, so you would have spend two of your 6.6 Commander's Option Points to get the two fighters). You could do this up to three times (replacing three of your HTS shuttles with six F-7s total), BUT IF YOU DID NONE OF THE F-7s WOULD HAVE DRONES OR PODS as these must be purchased separately. Type-VI drones cost 0.5 BPV, and getting them to be Medium Speed costs another 0.25 BPV.

So if you traded one HTS for two Shenyang F-7s, and wanted both of the F-7s to have two type-VIM drones, it would cost you 5 of your 6.6 Commander's Option Points. You could spend the last 1.6 points for two extra type-VIM drones to reload the one fighter that might come back the one time. You could save a point by just equipping them with RALADS for drone defense.

Shenyang F-7s are not going to be taking over the convoy routes. A Large freighter with two Skids and a Ducktail blowing all of its points for two of them (and maybe trading in the rest of its HTS shuttles for Admin shuttles to pick up the extra phaser-3s) is not going to be stalking any Large Armed Freighters, much less most Auxiliaries.

Now, a "Special Scenario Rule" could define that in some situation one Large Freighter was equipped by some company or other with eight Shenyang F-7s (or maybe nine if the Admin shuttle was replaced as well) along with a supply of type-VI drones and some pods. And it would need a special rule allowing more "deck crews" than the freighter normally has (i.e., it only has two and cannot buy any more since it is not a "carrier").

But outside of that (special scenario rules), the Shenyang F-7 is restricted enough by its own rules to not be an unbalancing factor in the game and I do not see a need for additional "Shenyangs" to be added to the game. I mean, a convoy of a large freighter and two small freighters, all with Skids and Ducktails, would have at most Seven F-7s (three on the Large Freighter assuming it replaced one HTS and its Admin), and two on each small freighter replacing the HTS in their ducktails. And their type-VI drones would probably only be speed 12. And I might be more concerned with the four extra phaser-2s the ships would have, and with the idea that they MIGHT have traded in all their other HTS shuttles for Admin shuttles for the extra phaser-3s and use as wild weasels and sucide shuttles.

The scariest thing about Ducktails and LASH skids is that it changes a small freighter from one bay, to three bays. (a large freighter from one bay to four bays), and without any other rule to the contrary (and there are not) if you came screaming in without thinking about it, you MIGHT get hit by two 18-point Suicide shuttles as even a small freighter is technically allowed to have two "special" shuttles ready at WS-III. (How a small freighter would have the time and energy to prepare two fully charged suicide shuttles is one of the game's mysteries, but there are currently no special rules limiting this, and the current existing rule of two is itself a special rule as earlier editions of it allowed every shuttle to be ready for a special mission, and picture a small freighter with a ducktail and skid with FIVE suicide shuttles ready, even if it can only launch three on a single impulse. Or picture that large freighter hitting you with four when you tried to overrun it).

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 12:33 pm: Edit

SPP

I'd probably not bother buying the drones under those conditions. I'd go for more F-7s (without drones) instead, maybe with the odd RALAD, but the P-3 barrage should be good enough for drone defence. That way, I can get six F-7s on my large freighter from your calculations, and don't have any problems loading on drones because there arn't any.
Four extra fighters are much more useful than six VIm drones which are hard to load up.

NB do this with enough freighters, and a convoy could have a serious P-3 barrage ability for only a modest BPV cost.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Or you could buy one F-7 plus a Seeking Weapon control pod, and buy a quantity of Type-I drones. Set your regular admins up as scatter-packs with one or two drones on each; use them as launch platforms, and use the F-7 to control the drones.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 02:10 pm: Edit

David Slatter:

My opinion would be that you were not thinking it through.

Under normal operations (i.e., no "special scenario rules), were an Orion Light Raider that saw a Large Freighter launch Six F-7s, I would be very happy.

It means that it will be easy to take in a boarding action, which is ultimately my goal.

Those plasma-F torpedoes I pack on my Light Raider may be tough to arm, but between them and my phasers four of those F-7s are going bye-bye on the first pass. I can pick off the remaining two with phasers on Turn #2 and Turn #3. During those turns we will enter into negotiations on whether or not you want to live, because if you force me to double my engines to finish loading my plasma-Fs on Turn #4, I am going to be really, really, REALLY annoyed with you. If you do not surrender, then on Turn #4 I will blow down one of your shields and send over one (1) boarding party from five hexes range. If he gets reflected by General Shield Reinforcement raised by batteries, I will blow down your General Shield reinforcement and send over the second boarding party. If he survives (you may have formed your two militia squads by this time), then on Turn #5 I will repeat the process. If they did not survive, then on Turn #5 I am going to hit you with plasma-F torpedoes and phasers aimed at doing about 20 points of internal damage. Why? To kill two crew units, at which point you will not have militia any more, and on Turn #6 we will try boarding again.

Once the ship is taken (at worst at the end of Turn #7 after I beam over a few more boarders), we will have a talk with the survivors of the crew. If I am not in a hurry to leave (no "help" detected approaching), we will get the cargo moved and perhaps I will only have the Captain of the freighter take that long walk through a short airlock. If I am in a hurry, and really annoyed with all this expenditure for no real gain . . .

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 02:19 pm: Edit

Michael Powers:

First, it is illegal to buy type-I drones if you cannot use type-I drones. You are not allowed to buy them just to use them on scatter packs (otherwise the Hydrans, Romulans, Gorns, Tholians, Lyrans, and ISC would all be buying them as an option).

Second, you should review the rules on drone control pods before espousing your tactic. The Pod allows the fighter so equipped to control up to a dozen seeking weapons, and to accept transfer of control of seeking weapons FROM OTHER FIGHTERS OF ITS SQUADRON (emphasis, not shouting). The Admin scatter packs are not fighters of its squadron, so it does not provide the F-7 with any ability whatsoever to control drones released from such scatter packs. Note that even a fighter from a squadron used as a fighter pack is not considered part of its squadron (FD7.44), so even a normal two-seat or EWF fighter could not control drones launched by such a fighter pack.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Or, maybe, I should just not try to invent tactics if I don't have a rulebook handy to check my dodgy pronouncements.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 04:09 pm: Edit

Michael Powers:

It is a big game and entirely possible for people to think they have a new tactical idea only to run afoul of a rule they have missed. It is surprising the number of people who think that every fighter (whether remotely controlled or not or launched as a fighter pack or not) think that the number of drones on a fighter is the number of drones it can launch in a single impulse of a single turn. Most are not aware that most drone-armed fighters can only launch two drones a turn if one of the drones is a type-VI.

Not too long ago Loren Knight espoused the idea that having a sensor pod on an EWF fighter gave it better capabilties for gathering Tactical Intelligence. But all that pod does is let a non-EWF fighter gather lab information on monsters as if it was an admin shuttle or gather tactical intelligence as if it was EWF.

There are a lot of tactics that, during a discussion, can come to light, only to run afoul of the rocks of the rules.

This does not mean that you should not run the risk of tossing an idea out simply because you do not have a rulebook, but it does mean that you have accept that it is a risk, and that your tactical insight may "founder on the rocks of rules and be lost with all hands."

Yes, the last was a feeble attempt at some light hearted jesting.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 05:28 pm: Edit

The great tragedy of science; a beautiful hypothesis slain by an ugly fact. (It's a quote, I don't know the source.)

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 06:01 pm: Edit

It appears that the F7 has limited use for freighter defense. Unless the freighter has its own drones, such as F-AL, the CO purchase of drones and fighters is too much.

A F-AL with a L-DT, LASH, and GS is 92 BPV. Add +12 for drone speed upgrades, +3 for an XP battery, and +3 to upgrade 3 PH-2s to PH-1s; total BPV of 110. You now have a pretty well armed freighter. I don't know what the CO points total is for something like this but the ship could purchase 2 F7s. Some of the Type Is from the B rack could be exchanged for Type VI drones.

I think I have considered the rules for the above configured freighter, but may have missed something. The down side is the Orions might just decide to steal the ship, rather than just take it's cargo some of the cargo; cargo must be valuable if it is being carried in something this well armed.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 07:11 pm: Edit

Joseph R. Carlson:

Hunh? I am not aware of a current rule that lets you convert the phaser-2s on an armed freighter to phaser-1s. I am sure if you could the SSDs would at least have included a phaser-1 table.

But a large armed freighter (say a phaser one for simplicity) has a BPV of 75 points. If you added two LASH skids and a Ducktail to it, it would have a BPV of 90 points. This would give it 18 points to spend for Commander's Options. Swapping the four heavy transport shuttles for eight F-7s would cost eight points, leaving ten points to spend for drones. Each pair of type-VIM drones would cost 1.5 points, so you could easily purchase 12 of them (enough to equip six of the fighters and leaving you one point of Commander's Options).

The question is whether or not all those F-7s are really doing you any good. A large phaser-armed freighter with two LASH skids has seven phaser-2s, three of them on 360 mounts, and will always (barring losing one) at least one other phaser-2 will usually be in arc, meaning four. That is just more than your typical Light Raider wants to tangle with (at least one that is not armed with three plasma-Fs) in any case. A large phaser armed freighter with those skids and a ducktail with a couple F-7s is just insult to injury, but if I was the plasma-armed Light Raider, I would be more worried that he would disengage by acceleration before I could disable him. Any other Light Raider arament selection just takes too much power to use, or is too easy for the freighter to counter (drones being shot down) while it makes its run. And there are just too many boarding parties to try to get your own on it (six defenders without spending any Commander's Option Points or rallying the militia while the Light Raider has only two transporters).

Frankly, I consider most large armed freighters as effectively immune to my Light Raider. The risk in trying to take one is too great. While I am sure the cargo would be worth more than what I typically pull off of freighter, those armed freighters are just too hard to take down before they basically disengage.

Now, SMALL Armed Freighters . . .

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 08:16 pm: Edit

SPP,

The freighter I used was a large drone armed version (R1.21) and it has 2 B racks after Y175, and with the + refit is 77 BPV.

In CL31 under (XR3.13) allows a PH-2 to be upgraded to a PH-1 for 1 point or an XPH-1 for 2. While I might have missed it, I did not see that XP refits weren't allowed for freighters.

Assuming XP upgrades can be used by freighters a small drone armed version would have 1 B rack. Now add a LASH and a S-DT. Upgrade the 2 PH-2-360s to PH-1s and 1 battery to X. Might be a more interesting matchup.

Your points on boarding parties and shuttles were very helpful.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 09:29 pm: Edit

Mtpowers: Thomas Henry Huxley.

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 09:54 pm: Edit

Joseph Carlson:

There is not a race in the SFU that, in my mind, would waste X-technology on a freighter, even one being used as a naval auxiliary. Even if the rule does not specify it, there's no way "I" would allow it in any game I was in.

If we were playing, and you tried to pull such a cockamamie thing as that, my response would to simply stand up, say "Great! You win!" and leave you there without a game. I can always go to the movies, swimming, etc.

Please do not take my comments as personal insult or diatribe; I don't mean them to be. I just can't stand "Monty Hall"-type concepts brought to SFB, even if its legal.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 11:32 pm: Edit

Richard,

I don't take your opinion in a personal fashion. So please don't take my reply that I do disagree as a personal thing either. The art of argument can is helpful in analysing ideas. As SPP said some will founder after running aground on the rules or the shoals of wonky ideas. My suggestion may; I could be incorrect.

The XP for the smaller freighter is 3 for the battery and 2 for the PH-1 (not a X PH-1). If that is too much don't upgrade the battery. This is hardly "Monty Hall esq" game, nor is it spy vs spy, or Monty Python. If I had said lets do all the phasers, batteries, APR, shields and drone rack I would agree with you.

It is more cost effective than purchasing F-7s. I suspect that the number of armed freighters is a small percentage of all the freighters and a XP refit, as suggested, even smaller number. I am not suggesting the whole fleet.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 12:03 am: Edit

Joe: I think his point is that there is more to an XP refit than just BPV. It's not a question of unplugging a phaser-2 and installing a phaser-1. There are many, many things that go into making a phaser; obviously the emitter itself, but also such characteristics as the quality of power going to it (eliminating parasitic harmonics that prevent the subspace cascade from reaching full development); the sensor/navigational gear of the ship (to accurately locate both the target, and the ship itself); the attitude-control systems of the ship (the phaser-1 requires a far more stable platform to fire than the phaser-2, about an order of magnitude reduction in average angular rates). There's quite a bit involved in an XP refit that doesn't show up on the SSD, or in the BPV.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 01:05 am: Edit

Michael,

The XP refit rules are a draft. I am a new player so some the balance and game dynamics issues are better addressed by others.

My understanding is the difference between a P2 and P1 is the better targeting/Fire control system. A P2 on a freighter has the same hit probability as one on a warship. The essence of XP is either you can or can't and you pay the points. You explanation is more imaginative than mine. Perhaps you would like to suggests some limits on XP and freighters?

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 05:55 am: Edit

SPP

I was merely stating that six F-7 fighters would be a lot better than two with drones. Of course they would not allow a large freighter to defeat an LR if the LR has unlimited time. They will however make a big difference (especially in plasma/drone defence) should that freighter be part of a convoy or if that freighter was a large armed freighter or Q-ship.

As I have said before, I don't see the point of putting *any* extra fighters or skids on a freighter if it still means you have no chance of beating an LR (or being able to run away from an LR) and every chance of, as you say, annoying the LR captain more.

Just a small side note. Six F-7 have 12 phas-3, which can shoot down at least 1 plas-F (assuming the LR stays out of R2, where you shoot at the LR) and, with the freighter admin shuttle's phas-3, at least damage the other (average ~ 46/2 damage). If the plasma was launched at greater than R5, it probably won't even cripple an F-7, doing ~3-4 damage on each of two F-7s.

And that's assuming the freighter is busy running away and thus not contributing its own phaser(s).


I mean - suppose you had 3 Large freighters and an armed Large freighter in a convoy? As is, an LR will probably wear them down - eventually. With 24 F-7 fighters popping out of those freighters, I wouldn't give too much for the LR's chances - maybe after a 30-40 turn "siege" of the convoy it would get somewhere using longer range (>15) DF weapons, but that's a reasonable length of time for help to start coming.