Archive through June 27, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
(D) Weapons:
Improved ADD munitions. (Rule 5.4x):
Archive through June 27, 2005
Towards the end of the General War (Year 184) all ADD using races (as well as those using RALADS) found that the traditional ADD round was less effective against larger fighters and shuttles and combat ineffective against PF's.
The Kzinti Research and Development program wanted to improve the explosive warhead of the ADD rounds so as to increase the damage potential to the point where it had greater leathal affects on fighters and shuttles, and add a capacity to impact larger attrition units (like PF's).
The challenge was to improve the munition without increasing the original size and weight of the round.
In all respects, the improved ADD round behaves exactly as a traditional ADD except for the amount of damage inflicted upon shuttles and fighters per rule E5.3 The improved ADD round rolls 2 x 6 sided dice for damage, rather than just 1, and when used against larger targets (such as PF's and Ships) the Improved ADD inflicts 1 damage point rather than the 0 possible for the original ADD.
The primary user of the improved ADD was the Kzinti Hegemony, follwed by those Klingon ships still equipped with ADD launchers after year 184 and was available to those Federation ships equipped with G type drone racks.
Use of E5.6 Antidrone Probability of hit chart remains the same, as does the range of effectiveness of the improved ADD rounds.
I thought the ADD round didn't have a "warhead" but was actually a "kinetic-kill" weapon that was basically just a hyper-velocity slug (or slugs).
Am I wrong?
JEFF WILE:
Where were these when I LOVED to play Kzinti!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Please tell us more.
Thanks.
Sherman is right. ADD tech. is a kenetic kill concept as can be seen in Archangel Down (title???), the movie about the pilot behind enemy lines in the Baltics. I think this might be a better item to discuss in x-tech items as a development of add-like weapons or add system capabilities (1 ADD per imp. or 1 T-VI drone per 16 imp). If using the faster T-VI one could say that it could switch modes after the 16 imps. Either way...make it an x type inovation.
Even as a kinetic kill weapon, one could replace the impact mass with a denser material paying the increased cost. Unless the motive system receives a similar boost, accuracy and possibly range would suffer.
Maybe the slugs were replaced with hi-explosive slugs and that generate the exttra damage ( not unlike my idea of replacing the kietic slugs of an ADD with a signle depleted uranium sabot and gives up the auto-kill hitting drones fro being able to inflict a point of damage against actual ships.
I think it would need a BPV increase if there was no other drawback lest every ADD would become an improved ADD.
To be honest, my thinking was to replace the kinetic kill part of the ADD with a "binary" type... using miniturazation to place inside the ADD round 2 "chambers" of reactants. one, would be matter, (an equal amount to that in the other chamber) the second (in a tiny staisis globe) an amount of anti matter.
since the size is miniscule (atleast) compared to the size and energy produced by starships the trade off becomes a slightly less dense kinetic slug for one with a matter anti matter explosive charge.
it is still tiny when compared to starships (thus only doing 1 point of damage against PF's or ships) but having increased effectiveness against fighters and shuttles.
Also, the amount of energy to "hold" the charge would amount to less than 0.01 points of warp energy.
This approach would mitigate, somewhat Richard Wells suggestion of a denser material requiring increased cost.
I could see it being an X type invention...except that I hoped to retain the ability of older ADD launcers and G drone racks to handle it as a upgraded type of ammunition... not as part of the "X" project.
Not saying it wont work, just waiting to be convinced.
I'm personally for anything to curtail fighters. It wasn't bad when I first started playing SFB back in 1982, but now I feel that fighters have gotten way out of hand and have broken the game. When I see a carrier on the map all I think is " Well this games going to take forever now! "
But I'm rambling, so back to the subject at hand. I don't care about the technobabble reason why this may work. But it seems like it would give ships with add tech a bit more survivability. MAYBE!
If you want to deal with fighters, why not just let any battle fleet take Aegis Escort ships instead of restricting them to carrier groups?
Or an X-ship.
Limited X-Aegis and rapid pulsed phasers will do nicely.
Type IX drones are fun to throw at fighters too.
I would also like to say that I think it's hard to justify no warp power being required to arm the super-ADD with anti-matter sinbce a point of damage against a ship would require 0.5 points of warp with any other weapon I would say that the lowerest it could be dropped to would 0.25 points of warp power ( the small volume thingy creating the efficency ).
But how would the super-ADD be armed with warpo power?
Would you be able to arm all of them in your rack or just the one currently on the launch rail?
Would the power come to the launch rail via reserve warp power or must it be allocated in EA ( limiting the vessel to one such shot per turn although it might after that shot be able to fire unlimted regular ADDs )?
If By reserve warp power then can it add the power to the super-ADDs the impulse of launch and thus the super-ADD fire normally or does it need an impulse to actually inject the antimatter into the drone-husk and thus is only able to fire every other impulse ( and then only with reserve warp power )?
Limiting it to firing every other impulse would balance out the 2D6 damage to fighters but players would be able to take advantage of the factr that an R3 double damage shot is better than an R3 shot plus an R2 shot!
I'm not sure what would happen if you launch the ADD without putting warp into the drone-husk and I'm not sure if the anti-matter could be held in the drone-husk for several turns sitting on the launch rail if you didn't get a good chance to fire.
Costs a lot; adds nothing against drones and the fighters the Kzinti face are less likely to charge in close. Why are the Kzinti bothering?
Klingons obsessed with the tactic of crippling Stingers at range 3 would try to design "narrow salvo" ADDs. They still would have the problems of expense for nothing against the bajillions of drones on the other two fronts. Still faced with two alternate problems: overkill on fighters with booster pack but ineffective annoyance against megafighters (which require moving up to 3 dice of damage).
I have my doubts about the play balance effects and the probable increase in more specialized weapons that counter specific enemy purchase choices but work out poorly the rest of time. Shades of Warhammer and various CCGs and never much fun in those.
Richard Wells:
Not sure that I agree with your costs a lot statement.
the idea is a stable round of ammunitition (like a regular ADD round) that is more effective against small targets and enhanced damage vs fighters shuttles and type H drones.
MJC is following his own tangent and fantasy that it would require use of energy, but the proposal (If you went back to look) does not specify special treatment on the Energy Allocation Form.
Take the proposal for what it was intended to be: an improvement on an existing weapon system that takes effect after the General War.
With regard to "narrow Salvo" ADDs, the Klingons already have ADD's and could attempt to use them as such. the yeild of 1d6 damage per round is so small, that it isnt worth the bother, IMO.
given (as you have already pointed out) that there are larger fighters and mega packs in service, the improved ADD round simply doesnt add enough damage potential to make such a tactic viable.
The ADD launcher and G type Drone racks are already in the game, this idea updates the ADD round to the level of post General War conditions.
If you need to kill stingers, using a ADD launcher is not necessarily the best way to go about it.
J.W.:
I demand satisfaction.
Tangents, yes.
Fantasies...this is science fiction!
Take the proposal for what it was intended to be: an improvement on an existing weapon system that takes effect after the General War.
Just on that.
It's a nice and handy thing to have but it need either a "drawback" or an increase in BPV to make the thing workable with the "game".
Gentlemen, choose your weapons...
JW: Advanced laser technology.
MJC: Roget's Thesaurus at 20 paces.
Right, here's the compromise: Bungie cords!
Jessica, I like the suggestion... If MJC lands a telling blow (with his thesaurus) I can respond with "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!" yeah right, I'll bet he uses the large desk version that weighs in at +20 pounds!
While, if I manage to hit with an advanced laser weopon of some type, all we would have left are the ashes to analyze.
sounds fair to me! 
MJC, let SVC make his decision as to what the balance factor will be.
we can make suggestions, but it is his call to make on that.
For what its worth, I'd start by a suggestion that each "improved" ADD round should cost 1/10 a BPV point to upgrade. they are valuable verses shuttles and fighters, but virtually no difference with regard to drones (except possibly type H drones...) and at only 1 point of damage versess PF's and ships...much more than 1/10 a BPV would be priced too high to even be considered as a commanders option purchase.
We should correct the record, per rule E5.0 (first paragraph) "Some ships carry a special drone rack that is loaded with short range hyper-velocity missles used to destroy incoming drones. This is known as an "anti-drone defense System"(ADD)."
(Second paragraph) "An Anti-drone is not a drone and is not treated as such; it is a direct fire weapon. Anti-drone systems are, however, destroyed on "drone" hits and can fire type VI drones, causing no end of confusion on this point."
(third paragraph)"Anti-drones came into service in Y140. Ships prior to that date used type E drone racks for this defense function."
I do not see words like "kinetic" or "Laser" in the description, and I do note the characterization as a short range hyper velocity missile(s).
In 44 years (26 of which included the General war) it seems that the lowly ADD did not see any improvement or enhancements.
compare with normal drones, which went from slow speeds to (If memory serves) to moderate, medium and fast speeds (to account for the change from speed 8 to 12 to 20 to 32)
this proposal is to improve the lethal effects of the ADD round on the specific class of shuttles and fighters in service after the general war.
if ADD's had "been improved" at the same scale as drones were improved, then the range of the ADD should be increased by increments of 1.5, 2.5 and 4 times.
(One way that could have been accomplished would be to draw up a new weapons chart for the ADD that increased its max range from 4 (the original auto miss hex to 6 hexes, to 10 hexes and finally 16 hexes...)
but I feel that is toooo complicated.
just thought increasing the damage yeild verses fighters and shuttles by x2 was a reasonable choice.
Could I direct you to E5.31 and you'll find it burried there in the text.
Jeff- new chart w/ longer ranges... To quote SVC "this way lies madness". It will totally destroy any level of balance that has thus far been attempted.
You seem to be presenting two central issues that you have a problem with:
1. Drones improve and ADDs don’t.
2. Fighters and PFs can be an annoyance.
I think you need to take a serious look at any matter anti-matter style improvement… it sounds too much like a Pl-D or Pl-Ks charge.
I would also stear clear of the ‘because A is improved B should be improved’. That is going to land dead BEFORE arrival. Ask yourself this: during the same 44 years, how many times were these techs. improved? Phasers, Disrupters, Photons, Fusions, Hellbores, DisDivs, Tractor-Repulsors, PPDs, PPTs (for that matter), Maulers…
There is a whole lot out there that hasn’t seen the amazing increases that drone SPEED has.
Back to my original observation… The crux of your suggestion is that we need to make the ADD more lethal to fighters and PFs. I don’t know that we need to do that. It is capable of killing an admin with one hit. Sure fighers and PFs take more; but there may be a way to deliver a better hit with a drone module. Consider a drone (T-IF) loaded with 3 ADDs. There is a 3*1D6 for a potential of 18 damage. I don’t have things handy, but I dare say that a A-20 will be in sad shape if it is not a kill. A T-IVF with 5 ADDs succeeds in the kill and is bound to put a crimp in a PFs morning. Using a Starfish module is a great way to get the range and kill power that you want. Frankly, I would rather save my drones for better jobs and snipe a PF with prox Photons/Disruptors.
Jeff,
Interesting, and probably harmless. Not sure as a player I would use it, but at least it isn't an uber-weapon proposal. Couple of quick points:
1) The term "hyper velocity missile" is not a misnomer. "Missile" in this sense means "capable of being thrown or projected to strike a distant object", i.e. a projectile weapon. Only in the 20th century did the term come to mean what we think of it as now; a guided rocket type of weapon. So the term used is accurate.
2) The ADD projectile did not see any improvements in 44 years, this is true. But the ADD system itself saw improvements, probably the most notable of which was the Y175 refit that doubled the ADD's capacity from 6 shots to 12. Add in the use of limited or full aegis on escort ships, and the ADD becomes a nasty weapon indeed. I'm not sure it needs any improvements.
Steve Cain:
You wound me sir! I did not present a new chart for range improvements on the ADD system, note specifically that I stated above "but I feel that is toooo complicated."
The proposal is to improve the ability of the ADD to inflict damage upon shuttle craft and fighters.
It should also be pointed out that as the original ADD system already kills 100% of the drones that it successfully hits, requires no improvement. (hard to beat 100%!) (ignores the effects on type H drones.)
The same improvement, following the kinetic kill model/line of reasoning, can be acheived if the number of "cluster Kinetic Pellets" (see discussion in rule E 5.31) were to be doubled... that would double the amount of damage that a shuttle of fighter receives (by the simple expediant of punching twice as many holes into the target as the original ADD round produced.
Such a improvement would require use of new materials that postulates somehow making each individual "pellet" smaller but having the same mass as the original ADD pellets... and managing to minaturize the new improved ADD round into a size and shape no larger than the original ADD round.
At a guess(since I am not an engineer) such a change would require a new hyper speed propellant for the missile that replicated the performance of the original type ADD round, but only used a fraction of the original volume of the improved ADD round, and the internal payload volume thus freed up for use, devoted to more "Cluster Kinetic Pellets". (Also presumes that the original performance could be attained WITH the addition of more pellets with a higher density available thru the use of new materials)
Thus a improved ADD round would still kill normal drones (it actually is inflicting double the ammount of damage needed, but a drone kill remains a drone kill). The improved ADD round would be twice as effective in damaging shuttles and fighters, but require no explosive warheads, no use of reserve warp or rules for charging said weapons, and would fit into special drones and RALADS.
Following up on Mike Raper's point, the increase in the number of ADD rounds corried by ships is reflected in the value of the various refits they received, (as determined by the increase in BPV where appropriate.)
requiring twice as many ADD rounds to inflict a kill actually lessens the effectiveness of the weapon since even ADD launchers have limits in number of rounds that could be launched during the course of a turn as well as limits to how many such rounds can be present on any given launcher (dependant on type, such a type G drone Rack or ADD-6, ADD-12 or ADD-30).
Finally, as to Mikes comment as to would he use it or not... that depends on the scenario and mission. many times, if just killing drones was the mission, it would make no difference choosing between original ADD's or the "new improved ADD's". If the mission was to kill Admin shuttles or HTS or HAS or 2 space fighters or 3 or 4 space bomber types... the new damage potential of the ADD's (especially if they were mounted in RALADS or on special drones) would make a difference in a playser decisions.
I would be remiss if I failed to make one further point.
The history after year 202 implies that fighters and other attrition units are less important as X ships become more common. improved ADD rounds reinforce that by making the killing of shuttles and fighters easier.
I'd don't think 2d6 is necessary, but a 1d6+1 solution after a certain date might be nice. In any case, this doesn’t do much good in the Andro War. Perhaps during the Andro War we should have an ADD-12 replaced by an E-Rack refit
I was thinking something like that myself. Jeff, maybe what you want is an E-rack that fires twice as fast...
Not only isn't this much good during the Andro war, it isn't much good during the Pacification either. Once the GW is over I can't see this technology getting much war-time R&D funding.
Tos:
the proposal of d26 would yeild an average of 7 points of damage, your suggestion of changing it to 1d6+1 would make the average damage worth 4.5 points.
using that approach, we could "adjust" the damage potential to any level needed.
I am not arguing, just wondering why you support 4.5 vs 7?
Michael Powers, IMO the simpicity of improving the ADD damage potential is to be preferred over inventing yet another type of drone rack...
making improved ADD's available makes it part of the commanders options process... changing the launcher rack means a refit and a physical change to the particular ship.
To me, making the munition more effective would be an improvement. inventing a faster firing E rack might be more difficult to justify (given that it already is an improved firing rate of earlier drone racks.)
Finnally, per Tos comment about little need during the pacification and the Andro War... I have to admit that it is not technology that pertains to those cases... but the traditional threat that ADD's are supposed to meet are drones, not Andies or ISC ships.
I also point to the YIS date as year 184. the R&D funding would have been made during the General War... not after it.