This has been an interesting discussion but I was wondering one thing. Is Petrick's ASM dead or has it just not been discussed for a while since it was discussed so much earlier in this thread?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:54 am: Edit

The ASM was originaly my idea...well, I called it something else and Steve Cole named it the Anti-Ship Missle and truthfully it grew out of a conversation.

Anyway, I recently send a new rule write up for it to SVC with a novel aproach, IMO. We'll see what happens.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 01:07 am: Edit

Anyway, the reason I logged on was that I was watching some History Channels stuff and a couple new concepts came to mind.

Short ranged fighters for planetary defenses. Earlier I posted something of a small lightly armed fighter the was deployed in swarms. (12-24+)



But that really didn't fit the planetary defense role very well. A planet isn't going anywhere and the enemy must come to it to do anything directly to it so a planetary defense fighter doesn't need a lot of speed. What it needs is a high deterent value. SO...

I suggest a Speed 8 fighter (single space) short ranged unit (stayes in system only). Takes 12 damage and is armed with two Ph-3 and two Type-VI. The special thing is that it has two sets of paired rails to carry Type-IV drones. These fighters would have a high Factor rating in F&E but could not leave the system (could not intercept passing enemies).

Also, is the concept of the short ranged drone. Sacrafic endurence by building a smaller hight thrust drive section allowing for an extra warhead. Endurance=32 impulses. Warhead 18 for the single space drone and 32 for the double space drone (yes, Type-H warhead strength).

These would be very ineffective in open space in most cases but would be very effective in defending planets as the enemy MUST come to you.

Give these drones the "P" designator for Planetary Defense Drone. As in Type-IP or Type-IVP. A fast drones would be Type-IPF or TypeIVPF.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 02:16 am: Edit

I think the short ranged drone may be far too much-- the problem is two fold. First of all, it makes raiding drone race planets radicalyl more difficult-- remember most planetary raid scenarios put the attacker on a clock. So by comparison the plasma boys come up short and they'll scream.

Also, I can think of a lot of uses for a drone like that-- mainly varients of the anchor. It's only 32 impulses duration, but in a close range fight that really won't hurt-- and it woudl also give a powerful "keep away" effect for drone races.
The idea might be doable, but I think that a great deal of work would have to be done-- at the very least, some reason why fleets cannot use the drone-- maybe the systems are very tempermental and require actual maitenance, rather then the "wooden rounds" most drones act as.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:34 am: Edit

Good points.

I failed to turn an eye to plasma and as a single round is a rack of drones it could be very powerful.

BPV probably wouldn't be enough to balance it?

Could say that a Type-IVP is not possible (leaving only the Type-IP).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:37 am: Edit

Perhaps the extra payload is what lowers the duration and lengthens the drone (physically longer front to back) so that it just won't fit into ship based racks. In the open areas of a ground base this is not a problem.


I wonder what Plasma races got for the Type-H? At this point though, if Drone Races got this the plasma boys would have to stand up for something.

The one thing planets with plasma could use is more range. Unlike a drone the war head starts dropping quickly. A drone, even reduced to 32 impulses, has full stand off capabilities.

If ground based plasmas gained a +5 range somehow that would be very effective.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:55 am: Edit

>Also, I can think of a lot of uses for a
> drone like that...

Exactly. All together now: "Why doesn't everyone carry these ("P" drones) on everything?" It _is_ possible for ships to deploy Type-H, after all, via the HW drogue.

Second line: "Why not buy Megafighters?" An F-20M has better stats than the fighter you proposed, although it carries 2 type-I instead of the 2 type-IV you suggest.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:58 am: Edit

Loren;

There's another potential problem with your "Type-P" drones. They will be much more effective in base assaults, since the base can't escape. Any drone-using race planning on hitting an enemy BATS will load up his fighters with these. (At least they will after medium speed drones become available. A type-IPS will only have a range of 8 hexes and the attacker might prefer to use standard Type-Is to stay further away from the BATS' weapons (and presumably outside the mibnefield). But with a Type-IPM the attacker can still attack the BATS from 20 hexes out and with 50% more damage potential than he would have with standard Type-Is.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Effective in base assaults. Which is why I suggested that they are too long to fit normal ship mounted racks.

Anyway, it's not terribly important, this is just a thought I had during soem History Channel show.

As to the fighter:

Michael Powers: The entire point is a planet based fighter that launches Type-IV drones. Type-I's don't do the job. The entire mission is the Type-IV drones so the F-20M doesn't cut it.

Combine this fighter with a flight of F-16's and then you really have something defensable.

Anyway, I'm just dropping ideas. You don't have to raise a chant against them.

BTW: HW-Drogue is available Y180 (Y178 at the earliest). That's half the GW already over, dude.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:18 am: Edit

32 impulses of endurance is too much for the "P" drones. Thats 32 hexes of range for a fast drone. While I sometimes need more, often, that is more than adequate.

I'm concerned about the slow fighter for planetary defense. Its great for one of the two tactics (sit in the atmosphere and launch drones), but extremely lousy for providing the planet with a mobile element (for flanking enemies, preventing them from deciding to do repairs if there isn't help on the way--remember published scenarios are the interesting battles). The lack of mobility also prevents the fighters from performing patrols or influencing the near-planet space (eg catch the trio of skiffs a bandit is using to ambush the monthly freighter at 50 hexes from the planet when it drops to tactical speeds).


One idea (this is borrowed and algamated from ideas and comments of others) for a "hook" is to expand the mega-fighter concept. Instead of giving a fixed advantage, there are a variety of packs that have different advantages. For example, one might produce 2 points of (360 degree) shielding and 2 points of specific reinforcement instead of the extra drones and structural integrity [the 2 points of specific reinforcement would be generated each turn but couldn't be used if the shield had been destroyed]. Or maybe one just produces 3 points of general reinforcement [useable every turn]. Or perhaps one that trades the extra speed for a P2 and P3-RX. Or one that trades "everything" for a heavy weapon (eg an F-15 with a standard fighter-photon). These would obviously need to be balanced individually.

They would be first introduced in a race specific way (ie each race gets one/two alternatives) during the last year or so of the GW. During the Andro war, they would become available to all (under a "pooling" effect).
As far as new ships for J3, I agree we have enough carriers already. But IMHO, there is room for extra escort types. How about an escort with a (large) balcony system? It lands a (half) squadron of fighters and then flies into range before launching them. The scout/escort has some F&E issues, but IMHO these can be solved (in F&E it either uses its EW or is reduced to 1 [2?] O-compot). A minesweeper/escort could be an interesting combination. Even just alternative weapon escorts could be interesting (much like the Fed specialized ones for the Romulan front). "Agressive" escorts (that retain some of their heavy weapons) would be quite interesting. allowing for a more DF based carrier group (in F&E, they get a higher O-compot, but don't give the escort bonus to the group).

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 06:57 pm: Edit

Dkass: I agree that some escorts would be interesting. One in particular I'd like to see is the Rom FH-M/RG-M. R10 gave others NCA-based escorts...

I have to assume all the DCSs are going in J3. They need to be published somewhere, no?

There are assorted other ships we need to plug gaps, like the Kzinti PV and Fed POV (missing from R8 but in F&E as of PO). The Kzinti VEH/VES (late-war CVE upgrade discussed in New Ships on this forum) would be another good candidate.

If SVC decides to go with the S-rack concept, a couple type-H drone ships for F/K/Z would be in order, e.g. K-E4DH `Osa boat'. Drones aren't exactly fighters, but the type-H was in J2...

As far as scout escorts, I'm thinking that maybe the way they can work in F&E terms is to treat them as ad hoc escorts in any round where they use EW. That is, they can't do the `escort thing' properly if they are avoiding blinding channels. Of course, they should get reduced O-COMPOT too, like any other scouts. The scout escort could be very useful in that a scout-escort frigate could go wild and `fall on the hand grenade' to save a valuable carrier from a drone wave. (Note to self: Don't get transfered to duty on a small scout-escort...)

If space-filler were needed, proto-PFTs with heavy fighters on mech links could be printed for the folks who might have used them (esp. Kzintis).

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 06:59 pm: Edit

Oh, I don't think F&E can stand a specific class of `aggressive' escorts, as the Fed NAC and Lyran FFE are already in there with no special rules at all.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit

Your right the DCS's need to be published somewhere and the Federation one, which currently is idenical to the ACS with different fighters, needs to be changed to match the F&E factors.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 07:12 am: Edit

Rail-launched drones were mentioned earlier in this thread. The response was that probe drones made them pointless.

We here at the Operation Unity Route One Headquarters would beg to differ. We've got plenty of rails, but no probe drones. Probes may be an odd thing to put on fighters, but they certainly don't duplicate any already-existing capabilities we have. We are also intrigued by the idea of being able to put weaponized probes on our rails, giving us our first-ever fighter-mounted direct-fire heavy weapons.

In fact, we are so miffed at your unthinking dismissal of our needs that we have formed an alliance with one another and the Andromedans, and intend to conquer all drone-using races. (Lyrans may avoid this fate by immediately ceasing to operate Klingon-built fighters; we know you really never meant to be a drone-using race, it's those awful Klingons' fault.) We will then execute those who dismissed our needs by strapping them to the last of the type III-XX drones and rocketing them directly into the huge balls of plasma their home planets orbit.

Yes, even the ISC representatives agreed to this; you really hurt their feelings.

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 09:48 pm: Edit

I could deal with all this droning on and on-but I can't stand all this probing!
regards ;)
Stacy

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Steven E. Ehrbar:

Did you mean rail launched Probes? instead of rail launched drones?

IIRC drones are mounted on rails for fighter use.

(not to be confused with RALADS!)

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 11:36 pm: Edit

Er, yeah, I meant "Rail-launched probes were mentioned earlier in this thread." By you, as it happens.

Now, we'd have to modify your approach to allow them to be mounted on non-heavy rails, since over here in the East we don't have type-IV rails.

Or, of course, J3 could add heavy-rail plasma fighters to go with a new, two-space "plasma-H", of a mid-grade between the D and F. (Or, since it's between a D and an F, should it be an "E"?)

 
Range   0-5   6-10   11-12   13-14   15 
Type H  15     11      7       3      1 

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 08:56 am: Edit

Thank you, but I wasn't looking for a "plug"... I just wanted to understand you correctly.

I'll be honest, I wasnt thinking about the plasma races fighters when I first proposed the fighter probe thing... interesting 'take' on the concept...

May I suggest that you make a proposal for heavy-rail plasma fighters?

Not sure how it would be received, but it would be a different direction for the technology to go in.

Do you have a suggestion on the rail launched probes (and their attendant weaponized probe version) that overcomes the objections that were posted earlier?

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 10:27 am: Edit

How about just a general "Plasma Race Fighter Refit" that allows any pair of D-torp rails to carry a single F-torp?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 06:30 pm: Edit

SVC,

You stated in the F-19 proposal topic "...Module G3 will eliminate the "formula" for megafighters and replace it with individual definitions. "

Neat idea. So is the ASM and ADD pod. How did the ASM do in play testing? Are there other items, that you want to tease us with, that might appear in J3.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 11:30 pm: Edit

CL31 contained an article the history of the Federation bomber program. A variant of the B-2 was introduced, the B-3. It had dual PH-G-360. These phaser units suffered from heat build up and was delayed until Y190. Also it says the bomber took advantage of improved power system miniaturization.

The premise I am suggesting is the Federation (and other races) would apply these advances to other fighter designs. A term, for the present, to designate these updated designs would be enhanced. So an A-20 would be an A-20E.

It is clear from other posts that speeds greater than 15 is an X design (except for the F-104, booster packs, and mega-systems). So I am not suggesting a faster speed.

A few ideas:

A higher DFR.
A new PH-2 for fighters, bombers, and PFs. It can fire twice as a PH-3.
A PH-2 pod.
Increased (larger) Phaser firing arcs.
Advanced warp booster packs with adjustable speeds rather than just on or off.

CL31 also published survey PFs. The Federation doesn't build PFs but would recognize the advantage a survey PF would have. I suggest that a F-111 with a survey package (I know it has been suggested before) that fits in the 3 space bay. Alternately a 2 space pod or a survey mega-system.

By Sam Wissa (Nerhesi) on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 04:45 pm: Edit

SC said something about 2 or 3 years from now - back in 2002 about J3.

*poke poke poke* J3? Jaaayyy Threee?

Sam W.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 05:13 pm: Edit

"Survey F-111" The problem is, to do this you would need to add a fighter mech-link to Fed Survey Cruisers, and then you would have to explain why the Feds didn't do that on their combat ships. It's already established that Feds didn't carry "casual F-111" the way that other races used casual PFs.

Perhaps a "Survey SWAC", a two-space shuttle that has the range and scientific ability to do the same survey tasks as a Survey PF, and functions as a SWAC when in combat.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 05:23 pm: Edit

"Survey F-111" The problem is, to do this you would need to add a fighter mech-link to Fed Survey Cruisers, and then you would have to explain why the Feds didn't do that on their combat ships. It's already established that Feds didn't carry "casual F-111" the way that other races used casual PFs.

Perhaps a "Survey SWAC", a two-space shuttle that has the range and scientific ability to do the same survey tasks as a Survey PF, and functions as a SWAC when in combat.

I like the "semi-gatling" phaser-2. Sort of the rapid-pulse concept, applied to fighters.

I don't know about the "adjustable speed" booster packs, because what would be the point? You can already set what speed you'd like, you aren't limited to going Speed 30. Maybe instead, there could be a "booster pack" that only adds 10 to speed (which isn't as important because these fighters' base speed is 20) but also only adds 1 to damage, rather than doubling it.

Personally, I don't think we'll see a J3 until we see an X2. The SFU is still thrashing out the General War timeline, and attrition units there have gone about as far as the Committee seems to want to take them.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Michael,

While I like the idea of a survey SWAC it costs a lot more than an F-111 and is more vunerable. I proposed a SWAC based off the MRC in another topic.

The alternative is a survey variant of the A-20F. It can be carried internally. It looses the photons and in their place are the survey equipment; retains the drone rails for probe drones; the P-2 becomes the multi-shot version. Put a mega-pack on it, which provides the speed and power for the survey duties. Escort it with 2xF-18FM.

Foe the GSX make a general survey shuttle (X-GSS) on the HAS frame. It would have the same abilities and weapons as an MRS, plus extra cargo room.

The booster pack idea: Creently when the fighter has them on they take double damage. The version I am suggesting would have add +4 and not take double damage, or above that to speed 30 would take double damage.