(EJD11.8) Plasmatic Pulsar Carbine

The Plasmatic Pulsar Carbine is a light PPD. It is a conjectural weapon for mounting in place of a G-plasma on SC4 ships, to allow true ISC behaviour in small echelons and low-BPV battles where a PPD-equipped ship would not be available.

(EJD11.81) General: The Plasmatic Pulsar Carbine is treated in all respects as a PPD except as described herein.

(EJD11.82) SSD: Each 'PPC' box on the SSD represents one Plasmatic Pulsar Carbine.
(EJD11.821) The PPC is destroyed on 'Drone' hits; it is considered worse than an HHC and better than a PA panel.
(EJD11.822) The PPC costs 8 points to repair. A PPD cannot be hastily repaired as a PPC.

(EJD11.83) Arming: A PPC is armed to standard (4 pulse) levels by applying 2 points of power from any source on two successive turns. An armed PPC can be held for 1 point of power.
(EJD11.831) A PPC can be overloaded with one or two extra points of power, providing one extra pulse per point. It can likewise be underloaded by applying less power (to a minimum of 1 point of power per turn). The same restrictions apply as for a PPD. An overloaded PPC cannot be held.

(EJD11.84) Firing: A PPC fires like a PPD and acquires a wavelock in the same way. To determine whether a pulse has hit, roll one die and consult the PPC table (EJD11.85).
(EJD11.841) An overloaded PPC has a maximum true range of 8 hexes.

(EJD11.85) Plasmatic Pulsar Carbine Table

Range	Hit (1d6)	Damage	Splash	Alt
0-2	no	-	-	-
3-6	5	4	1+2+1	2+2
7-12	4	3	1+1+1	2+1
13-18	3	2	1+1+0	1+1
19-25	2	1	0+1+0	1+0

(EJD11.86) Deployment After Y170, a PPC may be mounted in place of a type-G Plasma Torpedo, having a 120° arc. A ship so modified gains the P designator, or C if it is a Leader version. The ship's BPV increases by 2 per PPC.
For example, a DDL would mount 2 PPCs FA in place of both G-torps, becoming a DDC. A DDG (DDP), FFL (FFC) or HDD (HDP) would mount 1 PPC FA.
(EJD11.861) A PPC may be mounted in place of two adjacent type-F plasma torpedoes (not the ISC rear F torps). There is no change in BPV.
\iFor example, a CVE or F-AL might mount one FA in place of both plasma-F.}
(EJD11.862) A PPC cannot be mounted on SC5 units other than ground bases (BPV 12). [A Defsat might mount one (BPV 25) but I doubt it. That's an issue I shall leave to the Steves]
(EJD11.863) A PPC cannot be placed in an Orion wing mount or WYN side mount.
(EJD11.864) A PPC counts as half a PPD for (E11.17) fleet limit purposes.

A statistical analysis for the curious, comparing a PPD with a PPC. This chart shows average damage at various ranges.
Assume no EW shift (PPC suffers more with EW) and a normal 4-pulse load, all pulses that hit hitting at the same range:

Range	PPD	PPC
0-2	no	no
3	no	14.64
4-6	21.97	14.64
7-10	21.97	10.52
11-12	18.09	10.52
13-15	18.09	6.125
16-18	13.23	6.125
19-20	13.23	2.40
21-25	8.29	2.40
26-30	4.21	no
31-40	1.41	no

So it's about as power-efficient as a PPD on average, but better at shorter ranges, as befits an SC4 weapon. The best tactic is probably to overload, as it's more efficient and more flexible than a PPD at OL ranges, having a smaller 'myopic'^* range.
Another thing to note is that the splash effect is exaggerated compared to a PPD.

*Why do they call it myopic? Myopia is short sight. This is hypermetropia.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 03:10 pm: Edit

I think PPC would violate Battle Tech copyright.

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 03:35 pm: Edit

It might be simpler to make it a 2 shot PPD (so you wouldn't need a new chart created). Possibly a note that range 3 hits as range 4 PPD.

Damage would be higher at range, but less up close than the first proposal.

The reason I suggest it is that the 2d6 to hit is a pretty important lesson learned from the ISC watching the rest of the galaxy fight - I don't think they'd give up that advantage...

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 04:08 pm: Edit

Interesting, but I wouldn't go with it. Once a targets shields were down, the ability to mizia the crap out of them with these would be devestating. Not much total damage, but if you've lost all your phasers and HW's to a mix of ISC size class 3 and 4 ships, it doesn't really matter. That, to me, is the great advantage of the PPD; the fact that each pulse is counted as a seperate attack, but guarenteed to hit once wave-lock is achieved. This is a neat idea, but scary.

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 04:11 pm: Edit

This weapon is unnecessary, and doesn't fit with ISC fleet doctrine or history. The Strike Cruiser fills the small echelon role that this is designed to address (and so does the Medium Cruiser).

Hope that helps analyze the proposal.

By Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (Schoon) on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Mike: Agreed entirely on the Mizia comment. These could easily be subject to abuse.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 08:44 pm: Edit

The problem with a 2-pulse PPD is that it doesn't behave like a PPD. You might just as well have 2 disruptor cannon for all the difference it would make.

Agreed about the Mizia being scary, but that's about all that is about this. After all, you're not going to be breaking shields with it: all 4 pulses hitting will do 4+8+4.

A CS or CM is all very well if you can afford it. This is to allow PPD-equipped echelons at 300 BPV and below. A CS comes in at 155; an FF is 73, so CS+2xFF is 301 for your bare minimum. This allows a DD or DDL to lead it, allowing you a bit of variation.

When all's said and done, it's half a PPD taking more than half the space of a PPD. We know PPDs are good, but they're not that good.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 10:12 pm: Edit

I'ld like to take at this from another direction.

I have a SC4 vessel...an ISC DDL
I have PPCs for it.

Okay I find 4 points of power on the first turn and 4 on the second, no wait I'm overloading, 8 on the second to arm each PPC.
My ISC DDL has what?, 22 power and 4 BTTY and HK of 2.5 and Two G Torps which are replaced by two PPC.

Where exactly do I find 18.5 points of power if I'm only generating 22 and I haven't yet mentioned, movement requirments, phaser recharging, tractors, transporters, negative tractors or even...get this, the arming of my two rear facing Plasma-Fs.

These weapons are absolute blood suckers.


NOW.

You could either, drop the charging cost of these things to 1 point of power ( or 1.25 or possibly 1.5 ) each and then make them even less accurate or even less damaging or both or reduce the maximum range aswell.

OR.

You could just stay with the existing PPD chart and like the disruptor reduce the range to R22 or R15 depending on the size class and then just have 2 Pulses paid as one each turn or three pulses paid as 1 one the first turn and 2 on the second.

No mess, no fuss.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 10:18 pm: Edit

J.D.:

Ummmm, when you say:-

---

Quote:

After all, you're not going to be breaking shields with it: all 4 pulses hitting will do 4+8+4.

---

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 04:11 am: Edit

MJC

The PPC only requires half the power to arm compared to the PPC. So, to fully overload 2 PPCs, the DDL needs to find 4 then 8 power. That's about normal - an F5L requires 8 points to overload its DSRs, and I think an F5L has less power.

Jim

I think it could fly. One thing ppl may not have noticed is that it is quite difficult to get all 4 pulses off at good range for a PPD, let along this shorter-ranged PPC. There will be considerable myopic range problems, and anyone who does get all 4 pulses off with a good mizia effect will probably have had to work hard for it.

I would however stick with a 2D6 to-hit table. Small ships have big problems generating EW, and the ISC would make every effort to make sure that the shorter-ranged weapon would retain resistance to EW. You would make it have slightly worse to-hit values cf the PPD as it is a smaller weapon ( i.e. smaller energy beam to get wavelock). Alternatively, you could simply give "wavelock" a -2 on the next "to hit" die roll.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 07:23 am: Edit

---

Quote:

One thing ppl may not have noticed is that it is quite difficult to get all 4 pulses off at good range for a PPD, let along this shorter-ranged PPC.

---

By Hugo Vijftigschild (Galen) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 09:20 am: Edit

Mike,

proxy photons.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 10:02 am: Edit

Mike

Range 18 does an average of 6.125 damage for each PPC. Given that the PPC takes 2 turns to load, and that by the time you have got all 4 pulses off, the enemy will probably have closed to range ca. 12, making you hard-pressed to avoid an overloaded reply, this isn't whoopie-do land. Note that a bolted reply with an F-torp (i.e. fast-loaded G) at range 10 does an average of 4 damage.... (on ONE shield - better).

And the overload function of an PPD/PPC is almost useless. Unless you are attacking a base, you will almost never have an obliging enemy who will stay in your FA arc for 6 impulses at ranges 3-8 (remember this is Y180+ - ships are fast). About the only way you can pull off a full wavelocked PPD overload hit is if you are stopped or retrograding. And then the enemy will be in a position to dictate the engagement, only going in if he can weather your PPD/C.

Note that I *did* suggest making it a less-accurate verion of the PPD in terms of to-hit values.

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 01:01 pm: Edit

What's interesting, and I don't know if anyone's picke dup on this yet, isn't the damage to the main shield, it's the damage to the offshield.

This weapon's true power comes out when combined with the PPD. Imagine a major ISC fleet with these guys on the gunline.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 03:08 pm: Edit

As I said before, a 2-shot PPD, even with shorter range, just isn't a PPD. It splashes a little bit, but that's it. The defining things about a PPD are the splash, multi-shot mizia and wavelock. Take any of them away and you don't have a PPD.

As for 1d6 vs 2d6: this just made the numbers come out like I wanted; 2d6 would require more range steps without changes in damage. Playtesting with and without EW might say whether it's really worth changing it. Whether the ISC might want 2d6 is not the issue, as technobabble can easily handle that (smaller weapon, smaller targeting sensors, yadda yadda).

Agreed that these are nasty when combined with PPDs; that's why they count against the fleet PPD limit.

But the main point is this:

An F5 is a little D7. A Lancer is a little Ranger. A Lyran or Fed FF is a little Lyran or Fed CA. A Seahawk or Skyhawk is a little Sparrowhawk or Firehawk.

The same relationship does not apply to the ISC, because cruisers usually have PPDs, and no FFs or DDs do. This is designed to fill that gap.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 03:42 pm: Edit

And the problem with the ISC being operationally distinctive from the rest of the galactic powers is...?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 04:06 pm: Edit

I don't object to there being no "mini" PPD on smaller ISC ships. To me, the ISC is at heart a plasma race. The PPD is relatively scarce, and with good reason. As for the other races, yes, many are very weapons "pure". But look at the Lyrans. They, to me, are much like the ISC. The ESG isn't available for every ship, and when it is, it isn't used in the numbers other HW's are. I don't object at all to the discussion, and enjoy the notion of new improved technology. I just think, IMHO, that this idea will make the ISC small ships too dangerous.

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 04:22 pm: Edit

I enoy the discussion as well, but I think this proposal is a non-starter.

It doesn't fit ISC fleet doctrine (why would you have a gunline ship with a weapon that you can't get too close with?), SFB history (PPDs were a fleet weapon), and doesn't improve playability (PPDs are designed to bombard a target at long range in high ECM environments). If you want a small echelon, take a strike cruiser. You CAN afford it and a couple of frigates at 300 points (CS=155, 2xFFs=146).

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 05:28 pm: Edit

Silly question:
What's wrong with the idea that a PPC does not splash? It would still be able to pulse but each pulse would have insufficient oomph to splash on other shields. It would also reduce the mizia issue brought up earlier. The damage chart would remain the same, just ignore the splash values, and reduce max range to 22 (or even 15 for the FF types).
Too silly?

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 07:04 pm: Edit

Missed this one...

---

Quote:

...you aren't thinking about the rear sheilds of Klingon G3 or G4 are you?...these things will make a mess of SC4 vessels AND there are still the Ph-1s and Plasma-Fs to employ.

---

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 07:15 pm: Edit

The non-splash PPD is OK, but it's exchanging mizia for crunch power, so one might go either way. Ideally, the thing would do half-points of splash (eg 1 point to the left, then 1 right, then 1 left, then 1 right), but that's a bit complex.

There's not a whole lot to be gained by reducing the range below 18, as it's ineffectual beyond that. I didn't want it to be too short-ranged as (as Marc points out) a PPD is designed to hit at longish ranges.

Re the gunline: That's not what it's for. It's for leader ships in squadrons, not for gunlines in fleets.

It's not a matter of the ISC being operationally distinct from the rest of the galaxy; it's merely that below 300 BPV, you cannot have a PPD echelon (unless with a CS + 2 casual PFs).

IMHO, the ISC are defined by the PPD. Without it, they're just Gorns with funny plasma rules, a slightly better turn mode and no GASs.

It is conjectural; whether the ISC would have wanted the thing and whether it works in the gunline is a moot point. All I care about is whether it's balanced and does the job, namely to allow PPD tactics with SC4 ships.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 07:25 pm: Edit

re: mizia for crunch power

I think I mispoke. What I meant was that the non-splash version would completely ignore the splash points altogether. The only damage it would cause would be only the points listed for the facing shield.

Thinking about this, I believe this might be something worth submitting.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 09:46 pm: Edit

J.D.:


Opps. I mean E3 and E4.

Still consider this.

Take a DDL with PPCs against an E3 anything the opponent wants and an E4 anything the opponent wants and 4 small freights.

Use a floating map with no diengagement by range velocity or sublight.

And give the DDC a mission of, destroy or capture all 4 freights.


The DDL with PPCs will mess up those Klinks something rotten, whilst the other ship and the freights spend all their phasers on trying to destroy a plasma-F every turn.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 10:50 pm: Edit

(.86) should go. Instead, create specific ships with the PPC. The current rule is a decent guideline for which conversions are done, but it should still be explicit. This avoids having to tiptoe throught the minefield of ship modifications.

(.864) I'd suggest that the PPC cannot appear in the same fleet with a PPD (specific scenarios and campaigns might have counter situations). Basically, the PPC is supposed to be for mini echelons, as such they'll be rare and will only be used in mini echelons. They should never be seen on a gunline ship.

If that sounds too restrictive, make each PPC count as a full PPD for (E11.17). But even this will lead to abuses in squadron sized fleets (say 500 BPV, not really enough for more than 2 PPD armed ships and the gunline, but enough to upgrade a gunline ship or 2 with a PPC).

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 01:03 pm: Edit

Glenn - are you serious? Without splash, a PPC at range 7-12 does an average of 3.5 damage, over 4 impulses, for 4 power. That's worse than anything in the game. It's worse than a fusion beam (at 7-10) or particle cannon, and that takes some doing. Likewise, the damage at 3-6 and 13-18 is halved. Only at 19+ is it unchanged, and it's still worse than a disruptor or photon.

MJC: replace "DDL" with "Fed NCL+" or "D5K" or "Lyran CWB+" or "Traveller+" or "Tholian C" and you'll get exactly the same result. In fact, any ship that isn't predominantly drone or plasma will win that without breaking a sweat. Given a floating map and no time limit, you can just cripple one FS at a time from R15, then kill the escort. If the escort comes out to fight on its own, it dies horribly.

DK - I can agree with both points; I was just covering the options without making SSDs. And as you say, it's supposed to be a core for a mini-echelon, so shouldn't crop up with a real PPD. OTGH, someone's bound to try it. Making each count as a full PPD would probably do the trick, as PPDs are always maxed out anyway.