J11.3___.0 RALAD Pods
J11.3___.01 Over the years of RALAD use, it became clear that since sometimes a fighter would mount RALADs on full space drone rails, that some method of using this wasted extra ability could prove pivital in combat.
..... Thus the Federation researched the divice that would come to be known as the RALAD Pod.
..... The divice was a reworking of the starfish drone warhead that was placed in a fighter pod. Upon activation the pod would fire a stream of hyper-velocity missles at the target rather than a single such missle.

J11.3___.1 RALAD POD: The Pod is a single space pod and can be loaded on a single space drone rail.
..... The pod contains 3 RALADs that can be launched at a target. The RALAD shots attack that target on the impulse the weapon is ordered to fire, the impulse after that and the impulse after that.
..... The pod can only fire on the one target, if the target can no longer be fired upon (moves out of arc or is destroyed) then the weapon will continue to fire but the result will just mean that the weapon empties itself. Once ordered to fire the weapon can not be ordered to stop firing, it simply runs out of ammuntion (a fighter could HET the target out of arc inorder to "pull one's punch").

J11.3___.2 CARRIAGE: Maximum of 2 per fighter.
J11.3___.3 AVAILIBILTY: Unlimited.
J11.3___.4 ARMING: None required.
J11.3___.5 COST: 2.5 BPV each.
J11.3___.6 Year: of availibility, Y179 for the Federation and Y180 for all other drone using races.
J11.3___.7 A RALAD pod is treated as explosive ordinance {G25.3).

J11.3___.8 In all other ways a RALAD pod opperates as a RALAD including the J12.23 restriction.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 05:12 am: Edit

Err, why? Why is this needed? Why does the pod only carry RALAD instead of also having multiple dogfight drones mounted in a pod designed around a MW warhead? Are all other small components going to be in a multiple use pod (like chaff)?

Have you played with the concept and have players on both sides enjoyed the end results? I have my doubts as the play benefits as well as doubts regarding how it fits with the fictional universe.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 05:40 am: Edit

Why!?!

Interesting question. Why does one need an F-14 when an F-4 will do almost as well!?!

As to an MW pod, I don't have a reason to say why it couldn't be done but I suspect the fire once and it keeps going `til it empties firing mechanism is too simplistic to support actual guided drones ( even if just until they aquire their Type VI ATG ).

As too full space pods for everything half space.
What a good idea, why don't you propose it???

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 08:41 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Why does one need an F-14 when an F-4 will do almost as well!?

---

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 10:49 am: Edit

Michael John Campbell:

I am speaking solely as an SFB consumer, not an official employee of ADB.

Before you propose another system for SFB, I want to see evidence that you have, in fact, played the game rather than recursively read the rules.

Therefore - I am proposing the following:

1) You don't propose new rules until and if we have evidence from someone other than yourself that this idea was at least tested three times in your local play group.

2) You post when you intend to test the rule on SFB Online. We can ensure that someone can be there to watch the game and log the after action discussion.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 11:08 am: Edit

Three Anti-Drones on a fighter Pod? Heill no!

I mean, I once proposed a clip that would mount two type-6's side by side on a type-one rail but on a pod is way out.

MJC, I really don't think you understand what a Fighter Pod is.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Mike R: He was being sarcastic, as in "What, you're asking why we should invent something better than what we've got now?"

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Nope. He just doesn't get that an F14 isn't just a little bit better, it's a whole lot better. Yet more evidence he doesn't play the game, but just wanders about the rule book looking for stuff. Since the ban on tactics, he's obviously going for new rules instead.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 03:48 pm: Edit

Mike Raper: No. NO NO NO. HE DID NOT MEAN THAT. Only a pointlessly strict literalist interpretation would result in mjc actually claiming that an F4 was equivalent to an F14.

Honestly. Sarcasm isn't just dead; people are defacing the bloated corpse.

edit: And since someone is very likely to misinterpret this message, I'm not suggesting that the RALAD pod is a good idea, or a bad idea. I am not discussing the idea at all! I just think that if you're going to attack mjc per the accepted board practice, you should at attack correctly.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Michael Powers,

You obviously don't have the same experience with MJC the rest of us do. I assure you; he did mean it. A near complete lack of understanding of the game leads one to make such statements as he did. Do you honestly believe that this entire proposal, misguided as it is, was nothing more than sarcasm? Or how about the anti-matter pod proposal? Or "true" disruptors? Or Pulse Phasers? Those were not sarcasm; they were just poorly thought out proposals. So, yes, I do believe he doesn't realize the difference between an F14 and an F4. Given his history with such proposals, it's very easy to believe just that. I suggest you go read some of those before you tell me I don't recognize sarcasm.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 05:57 pm: Edit

>You obviously don't have the same experience
>with MJC the rest of us do.

You're right, I don't. What I am seeing is very childish behavior on the part of the other regulars. Someone from outside seeing all these proposals getting flamed (not just shot down or disagreed with, but flat-out flamed) is quite likely to think "huh, the SFB community is a bunch of jerks, why should I get involved in that?"

It's not as though everything that gets posted here automatically is accepted and printed and becomes part of the SFU! If you see an mjc idea that you think is dumb, then try this out: Don't post about it. SVC and SPP clearly have working brains, and will decide for themselves whether his proposal has merit. If you see an actual rules mistake, or a reason how this would break other parts of the game, then that is what you can post. But inventing ways that he's wrong and flaming him for those does nobody any good.

Sure, some of these ideas are completely unworkable in SFB, but it's not as though there are any other active SFU communities where someone can post wild ideas related to SFB. This message board is it! And if we start flaming someone's ideas because he had other ideas that got flamed, well, that doesn't really sound like a good bunch of players...

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Michael,

I don't see anybody flaming MJC on this thread.

On the other hand, his second post here was kinda rude.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 07:46 pm: Edit

No one is flaming anyone. Before you can really judge the "community", you'd have to take a much bigger sample of how folks get treated than just one guy. You have to understand something; he brings this on himself. No one else has been banned from posting tactics, for example; only him. This is not "our" fault, and what may seem like flaming is just the normal reaction of normal players. If our criticism of the man bothers you, I'm sorry...truly, it isn't meant to offend you or anyone else. But don't assume that when we "attack" MJC we're just doing it out of pure old fashioned meanness, 'cause it isn't true.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 08:21 pm: Edit

If for no other reason than balance (and there are other reasons), this pod proposal could not be accepted. The plasma races have enough difficulty dealing with the drone armed fighters without granting the drone armed fighters yet another boost to their firepower. The Hydrans do not need to face Z-Y fighters with two pods lobbing RALADS in addition to all their other drone capability.

In short, the proposal would be massively unbalancing outside of the "drone zone" (i.e., outside of drone fighters using it versus each other).

That alone is reason to reject it. As such, I see no need to review it further.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 01:27 am: Edit

SPP:

I'm not so sure it is unbalancing, in that the type I drones the fighter would otherwise have availible to launch are no longer availible. The BPV price tag is also a big penalty on using the pods.

But I do agree that it gives the plasma boys; nothing and thus isn't really needed at this stage of the development of SFB weapon systems.


M.P.:

Thanks for remembering the the proposal ought be looked at from it's own merits.


As to the Philosophical question of, "if it fits all the criteria for addition the game ( appropriate YIS, appropriate BPV, balance with other weapons) is that enough to add it to the game?".
Does it need something else?
Some people will say "yes, it needs to be fun". Personnally any flexibility is fine by me because those who don't want it can simply choose to not use it ( assuming it is indeed balanced ).
If those arn't enough by themselves then I think X2 will have no reason to live.

The last thing one needs to consider about a proposal is who proposed it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 01:41 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I mean, I once proposed a clip that would mount two type-6's side by side on a type-one rail but on a pod is way out.

---

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 05:03 am: Edit

One F14. Because it uses up fewer shuttle bays and therefore I don't have to spend as much BPV (per fighter) on the carrier unit. Alternatively, this may mean I only have to have one carrier instead of two, and thus only have to hold one ship out at long range rather than two. I also can have more regular warships in my fleet rather than escorts.

I mean - which would you rather have?

CVB(F14)-NAC-FFE CAR+ NCL FF+

OR

CVS(F4)-NAC-FFE CVS(F4)-NAC-FFE.

Note that the ships in the above line cost less in F&E terms, even if F14s are expensive compared to F4s (economically speaking).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 09:04 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Yeah, it was sarcasm.
But let me ask you this question, which would you rather have; two F-4s or one F-14?
Fully loaded with all the correct drone speeds. Y172.


If two F-4s can beat an F-14 then the F-4 is almost as good and the F-14. Depending of `cause on your definition of almost.

---

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 10:53 am: Edit

mjc: Agh. And you were doing so well, too.

Re: Pod Rails. A fighter has two "pod rails" that are in addition to the regular drone rails. A pod can be carried on a drone rail, but it doesn't have to be.

Also, we already have a "multiple-round ADD carried on a drone rail"; it's the Starfish drone. And Starfish drones can't be carried on standard rails.

Also: It's unbalancing because drone fighters are already unbalanced compared to plasma fighters, and barely balanced compared to the Stinger-2. Proposing something that lets any (or all) of a carrier's basic drone fighters get a whole bunch of extra ADD will make drone fighters much more powerful against other fighters. Even if you limit the "ADD pod" to carriage on a standard rail, it's still going to be too powerful. (And if you make it special-rail only, then why not just buy a Starfish?) And, as I have often said elsewhere, mere BPV is not a balancing factor.

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 11:27 am: Edit

SPP has spoken and (although he would insist that his is not the final word and any discussion could have merit) this specific proposal is clearly DOA.

We're done here.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 09:45 pm: Edit

The truth is that the F-14 can outfight twice its weight in F4s any day and twice on Sunday. Better speed, bigger drone loads, better DFR... just on speed alone it can pick the time and place of engagement, which the F-4 cannot.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 11:44 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Re: Pod Rails. A fighter has two "pod rails" that are in addition to the regular drone rails. A pod can be carried on a drone rail, but it doesn't have to be.

---

---

Quote:

So, on the one hand it's sarcasm, but on the other it's a serious question and you still think an F4 is almost as good. Right. I stand by my eariler belief that you really think that, and that it was not sarcasm.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 11:49 am: Edit

LOL, nice try. The fact is you still said that an F4 is almost as good as an F14. Now, you may define "almost" in some bizarre way that only makes sense to you, but to the rest of the english-speaking world, the normal and accepted meaning of "almost" means "nearly the same" or "only a little less than"...and everyone here agrees that an F4 and F14 are nowhere near being the same except you.

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Well, both the F-4 and the F-14 carry the same number of drones (2xI, 2xVI), at least until the A, B, C, D variants come along.

Now, the F-15, OTOH ...

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 03:40 am: Edit

I almost posted on the F-4 v. F-14 last night but seeing SPP would rather just have the pod issue die, I figured those who wanted to discuss the merits of various fighters would find another place. So now that everyone has chosen this...

Speed, DFR, Damage rating, PHASER GATLING.
Some people still don't get it. Some people still have not played F-4 v. F-14 (AKA the turkey shoot). One F-14 in a fleet battle will live longer than 2 F-4s in most cases as it can stay away from the big guns better (it has speed 2-3x of the F-4). At a base w/ minefield the thing gets in and out of the desired launch range a lot faster and lives to tell about it a much higher % of the time. Sure, it starts with the same drone load, but look at the competition, it is still a great fighter for its day. Enough with the politicking about what you meant to say. The F-14 is too good to call anything short of outstanding and a marvel of the federation.

MJC:
BTW, If you are going to propose something about a fighter, it might be best to at least know what the RULES for fighters are. It might be nice to try the idea out. I mean this isn’t F&E where one playtest can take, oh, a month. But, sorry, I start to sound like Burnside.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 12:12 pm: Edit

Steve Cain:

I never said I wanted it to die.

I said that it was unabalancing and that that alone was reason to reject it, and as such I did not see any need to go into greater detail of my own analysis of it.

That did not mean that you guys could not continue to discuss it, nor that SVC might not decide to do it and give the plasma (and fusion/hellbore) races something else.

Please do not put words in my mouth.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 01:45 am: Edit

3:40 AM...
Sorry, poor choice of words.
Excuse me while I step in to the booth. I believe it is my turn.