Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through January 27, 2006	25		01/27 08:27pm

One More Thing.

Consider carefully the loophole you are creating for drone captors. Drop the drone captor on passive (drones have 360 degree launching) with the drones set to launch ballistically and seek their own targets (ATG drones). If your web mine can be dropped with no need to align itself, then Kzinti (or Federation, or Klingon, or Orion) Drone Captors could be dropped the same way. Of course the major difference is that their targets would have to be five hexes or further away at the time they are released to seek, but then there is of course no need for a captor to have oriented itself.

Again, Not going there.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 07:23 pm: Edit

SPP,

take for a moment that Foreign Web is a do able thing, what issue would you have with only the Captor version? Eliminate the Trans-Caster for now.

I ask you accept for the moment that web can exsist that a Tholian cannot fire or pass through. And accept that the mine type of web is a different (more rudementery) type. Before answering that I would like to site (SH120.47).

This tells me that there perhaps is some "frequency" (although likely more complex) that must be known. Hence Tholain Phaser Captors would be aware of this "frequency". BUt what if this web is of a type that cannot be fired through. It has to be of this type because that is all the tiny generator on a mine can produce.

I also have an E-mail comment that cannot be posted.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

Sorry, but I already answered that.

Webs have frequency, and referring to a scenario I wrote that used that is all well and good, but only supports the basic premise. There is no reason to believe that the Tholians would deliberately deploy a web device that might affect their own units (which is what you are calling for, i.e., it will block their own phaser fire, it will block their own movement). You are grabbing at a straw to try to get something, and the straw does not work. If the phaser captors can be sitting in minefield X for six years and still have the right tuning to fire through the web that is laid by the base, or by any ship that arrives to defend the base, then it is possible to tweak the frequency of the phaser captor to match the web. If that is possible, then it is possible to tweak the frequency of a web mine that you propose to fire web that will be operationally identical to any other web that will be used by the Tholians on that day.

There is no valid reason for the Tholians to lay web mines that might hinder them (a web mine triggering while you are trying to lay your own web to protect the base could delay the laying of your defensive web, and is another reason not to do this), and every reason in the world that if they were developing these things, they would go whole hog and make them compatible simply for the stated tactical reason, i.e., string web around a base faster. That alone would be worth of the cost of developing the better system.

Like I said, you can try to get SVC to go along, I cannot.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 08:12 pm: Edit

I posted several tactical reason they would use them but I can think of a few reason to use the purely Captor types in a mine field. Consider seeting several at 10 hexes away, or at maximum range. It could break up approaching forces and or drone waves. The lead group gets by but the next group is delayed.

Foreign Web: I really wasn't grasping at straws. It was a new concept (actually one I had in mind for years as a possible thing) that I found made the device more interesting and made it less than a super weapon.

I don't see why they would go to the expense to make on fully compatable since there is no need to use it to pop up anchored web that fast. By Y200+ (the era I propose developement) all the bases have web casters and can set up their own pretty quick. The first would be in the direction of any approaching enemy. Small outposts might want to use them though.

I don't see why it can't just be a technical limitation. There is presidence for technical limitations after all. I mean why haven't the Feds developed an R5+ proximity photon? Maybe they will in X2? I find it hard to grasp that just because they develope one level of a new technology they would go all the way. Maybe all the way just isn't possible. But that lies in the realm of technobabble. What's more important is its game merrits.

Anyway, I won't go on and on. We are both at the point of repeating ourselves on our own visions of how things are. I appreciate your time here. I've done my best to argue the system but have fallen short of making a very strong case (which any new rule should do).

If I can't get you to be at least wishy washy on the subject then its probably not worth the effort to convince SVC (or in a face to face meeting where conversation is MUCH more efficient). I might have done that before being experienced as I am now. I've enough on my platter as to not really want to champion the cause much further.

Anyone else want to comment?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 08:27 pm: Edit

SFB is a large complex game with no end of rules interaction. Indeed, introducing a new idea can be far more complex than is readilly noticable. This concept, IMO, could be fun and not unbalancing were it not for the deeper interactions that can and will persist. In the limited scope of the original idea it was sorta neat.

A recent E-mail exchange has shed light on an additional interaction that convinces even me that this will not work.

If on a mine why not a shuttle. Shuttle with web casters? Even with web as I defined it, a squadron of web casters?

THIS IS WHY YOU TALK TO SPP. Besides the differences in opinion on technobabble stuff there is real game effects and if those are bad then the rule shouldn't advance. SPP finds these interactions like no other. Seriously, I never even considered Phasers from Captors firing through web. I don't find the arguement in itself convincing but it is something to consider. I'm always impressed with just how much stuff there IS to consider when proposing a new rule.

There is of course a difference between a new rule for a new race and a rule that is an out growth of an old technology and an established race. It's the latter that is so complex.

This one failed to wash through.

By William Curtis Soder (Ghyuka) on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 09:02 pm: Edit

Loren:

You spent so much time on this project thinking outside the box of SFB, that you didn't consider you could get nearly the same effect by thinking inside that box.

Your captor mine (dump the ship-based one) could possibly be made to work by using a single use Snare instead (perhaps 2 Snares on a Large). If you follow all of the relevant Snare rules, you may just find that that works. It truely does eliminate a hellova lot of your problems.

First you'd have to state that it cannot be used as a Web Generator (unlike a normal Snare). You'd have to setup some form of limitation on the number deployed when (similar to the ship deployments). The rules on Snares already limit the power in it (1 point) and what it can generate where (1 10 pt. or 2 5 pt.). It would only cast free-standing web and couldn't create anchored web (as per normal Snare). It would need active fire control and lock-on to the target hexes (as per normal Snare).

I'm not saying it's as useful as your idea was but it accomplishes pretty much the same goal.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 09:47 pm: Edit

Would there be a hole in the center then? I'm picturing the result would be two one hex snares on either side of the captor mine. It would be tactically more useful then if it produced three snares (example: One in B, D, and F.) Still, not too difficult to avoid. The snare has one advantage and that is because it is used on persuing seeking weapons, typically. It's easy to guide those into the trap.

You can't have a line of three because each is a free standing web that cannot be adjacent to another web. Or would they merg into one web?

By William Curtis Soder (Ghyuka) on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 09:15 am: Edit

Well, I hadn't worked out any thing in particular but just thought how much your proposal seemed to fit a Snare instead of a full-blown Web Caster. I was more or less giving you another option to explore your idea instead of stealing your thunder.

I'm guessing that a Small Captor with one Snare would just produce the 1 10 point or 2 5 point hexes of web in any 1 or 2 connected adjacent hexes. Now SPP did mention something about the possibility of a captor firing at range zero so I guess you could verbage it's own hex to be included in that (an exception to normal Snares).

A Large Captor with 2 Snares could possibly web two opposing sides. If they'd let you connect them (an exception to normal Snares) then I guess you could get your 4 hex line. Another possibility is for it to create a web at one time and then make another when that one dissapates.

You might be able to put more Snares on the mines but that's just what I started with.

I know this wouldn't be too difficult to avoid but it would serve the same purpose as Snares on vessels. One possible use would be to jam up a mine corridor for a while till defending ships could react. Maybe even to defend a minefield itself so someone just can't send some doofy unit barreling through.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:39 am: Edit

I appreciate your input William. Thunder steeling never occured to me. Besides my thunder had already settled to a quiet breeze by the time you posted anything.

I think that for the mine to be at all useful tactically (in a general sense, even a single hex snare might be useful in specific situations) it needs to put up at least three hexes of web with one to each side. While it cannot stop the triggering unit it will be in the way of units following the triggering unit. It then becomes useful dividing approaching forces.

Still, the ramifications are considerable. If you can get a snare on a mine (say even only a large Captor) then why not on a shuttle. Then picture a squadron of fighters all dropping snares all over the place. A smart opponant will be able to deal but keeping track of all those snares would be much fun, would it?

Still, it's unfortuate because this could have been fun I think were it not for where it leads. On its own it is unique and to be able to spring a trap like that sure would mix things up.

By Barton Pyle (Bart) on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:42 am: Edit

I would think that any Snare Mine would be a Command-Controlled Mine only. This mine would be expensive to produce. The Tholians wouldn't want it going off unless ordered to do so.

I do like the idea of a snare mine. It is unique.