Point Defense Gun

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: New Rules: (D) Weapons: Point Defense Gun
By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 08:56 pm: Edit

I have an "conjectural Federation" proposal that envisions a Star Fleet that never adopts the use of drones (or other seeking weapons, for that matter). [This proposal is purely a SSJ type submission. Don't go nuts on me.]

The easiest way to do a "drone-less Federation" is to just reduce them to photons and phasers. But that doesn't really work. If you give them phasers to replace the "lost" drones, they end up with *way* too many phasers. If you give them gatling phasers to compensate, you either adopt the Hydran pattern (LS/RS) or make it *better* (360).

Since I didn't like either of those options, and because they would really need some kind of "secondary" weapon for game balance purposes, I rejected the "phasers and photons" option.

I decided that ADDs really were a reasonable solution, especially since they are actually direct-fire. The problem with ADDs is that they are worthless (or nearly so) on the Romulan front. Which, of course, is why G-racks were introduced in the first place.

I thought that it would be pretty cool if ADDs could be effective against both drones AND plasma. But that wouldn't be possible, and wouldn't really fit the game. Then, I suddenly realized that I was doing this for an SSJ submission! Maybe it *could* work!

So, I came up with the Point Defense Gun (PDG). The rules are:
--------------------
Point Defense Gun (PDG)
The PDG works exactly the same as ADDs as described in (E5.0), with the following changes and additions.
- The rack has eight rounds.
- The rack has a single reload, until the Y175 refit, where it gains double reloads.
- If the PDG is charged with .25 points of power (from any source), and the PDG hits a plasma torpedo, the plasma torpedo will take the equivalent of three points of phaser damage. The .25 point of power must be paid for each shot made. It is the PDG round that is charged, not the rack itself. The energy can be allocated (during energy allocation) or reserve at the moment of firing.
- A charged PDG round can still be fired at drones and shuttles, but will have the same effect as an uncharged shot.

Rail-Launched Point Defense (RALPD)
The PDG ammo can be used on fighters just as ADD ammo can. Instead of RALAD, it is called RALPD. The system works exactly the same as the RALAD system (J12.0), except that RALPDs can be charged just as they can be in a PDG rack. If the RALPD is charged before being loaded on the fighter, it can also affect plasma just as a charged PDG shot can.
--------------------

The idea behind the "charged" round is that it "flashes" the equivalent of a phaser pulse when it hits the plasma warhead, doing plasma damage to the warhead. I imagine it "can't be done" but should be close enough to reasonable for a conjectural version.

So, would this work? Is it unbalancing? It does change the nature of their combat with the Romulans, as this is a defensive weapon, as opposed to an offensive one in the type-G rack.

The idea of the overall submission is that the Federation character and history is basically the same as the "real" Federation. The only difference is that they didn't adopt drones.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Sounds cool to me. Is this the same universe where Mini Photon canisters replace type-I drones?

Heh.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 11:53 pm: Edit

For droneless Feds this sounds OK.

Interestinig that a little while ago someone made a proposal that I had made several years back and this charged ADD for damaging plasma is also one I'd made. It didn't go anywhere (not even SSJ). In any case I can hardly have a problem with it. :)
I think SVC had said it wasn't the first time it had been proposed.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 12:47 am: Edit

With the mess of phasers that the feds have, does this need to damage plasma?

Don't think so, personally.

Nor should the ADD mount a plasma-damaging round

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 07:55 am: Edit

Loren,

This is *not* original. This is a development of something I had come up with years ago (and, I believe, even talked about on the boards). But I recently dusted it off again and was trying to see if I could make it work.

John,

You *did* catch that this is conjectural and to be only used by a Federation without drones, right?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 07:55 am: Edit

I think it'ld probably be better just to have a 360° Ph-G-like weapon with it's own internalised Aegis system that means it can only target SC6-7 units as a Ph-G and is a 0.25 power Ph-3 in all other cases.

I don't think you need to limit Feds from using their Ph-Gs offensivesly as they have so few G-racks to replace but limiting with an Aegis rule would work. You're effectively ripping off the Rapid Pulsed Phasers of X-ships but that's okay. Maybe this tech in that alternate universe created rapid pulsing a few years earlier.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 09:55 am: Edit

The problem is that I don't want the Feds to have a Ph-G (or a knock-off) on their regular warships. (In my original proposal, I completely took away all "sloshy" technology: drones, Ph-Gs, plasmas. All they had were Photons, Ph-1, Ph-3, and PDG. I don't know that I will necessary eliminate Ph-G in the revised proposal, but they will be used no more than they were historically.)

My goal is to have a defensive weapons system that is NOT a phaser, is legitimately hit on "drone", and can replace the G-racks.

Actually, the PDG doesn't even have to be a modification of the ADD. It could just be some ammo based system that destroys small physical objects with kinetic energy and disrupts plasmas for a very minor warhead reduction. Skip the whole ADD thing if it trips you up that bad.

But, seriously, if we can put a plasma torpedo in a canister, why can we put a small phaser charge?

By Barton Pyle (Bart) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 12:28 pm: Edit

I Like it. I like the idea of Feds without drones! I also like the weapon system as long as it can only be fired at targets that only adds can be fired at.

By Daniel E. Bivona (Admiraldan) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 12:56 pm: Edit

I think that this would be a great SSJ artical. (Droneless Feds, that is) Something that is unique yet not entirely off base.

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 01:09 pm: Edit

What do the feds put on their fighters if no drones in this reality?

By Chad Calder (Calder) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 01:12 pm: Edit

Shrug,

This will make the Feds awfully weak. Your basicly trading ECM drones and all of the other drone goodies for the ability to have %66 chance of reducing a plasma warhead by a single point and you still have to pay power for the privlege.
(after all a G rack could hold 8 ADDs if you really wanted to.)

maybe something like.
If a ship only has one drone rack it is replaced by a PDG and an APR(AWR)

If a ship has two drone racks it is replaced by a PDG, APR(AWR), and a Ph-1.

If a ship has three drone racks it is replaced by 2 PDGs, 2 APRs(AWR), and a Ph-1.

If a ship has four drone racks it is replaced by 2 PDGs, 2 APRs(AWR), and 2 Ph-1s.

(Just keep on following the pattern above for ships with more drone racks ie the Fed BB should be the only non-drone varient ship with more than 4 racks.)

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 01:30 pm: Edit

All fighters are A10 and A20s !!!

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Or A-18's....:)

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 02:24 pm: Edit

This weapon needs to be at least nearly as good as a G rack to work as a G rack replacement. Similarly the fighter mounted version needs to be close to the usefulness of type VI drones since even A10 and A20 fighters carry some drones.

I'd go with 6 points of phaser damage for 1/2 power. 3 is too little, only 1.5 points of plasma reduction (round down to 1) if you hit. Why bother with the change for only 3 phaser damage o a plasma? I'd far rather have a G-rack so it fails the comparably useful test rather badly.

Allow the weapon to be fired in "offensive" mode at any target (doing damage as an ADD or 6 points of phaser damage, firer's choice) at one shot per turn; or in a "defensive" mode at size class 5 and smaller targets only firing every impulse as an ADD.

DougL

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 07:53 pm: Edit

Hmmmmm....

Point Defense Phaser.

Requires .2 energy per shot (ie, 5 shots cost 1 point of power). Has no integral phaser capacitor, draws power from the other phaser caps as needed. Can be fired using reserve power.

Uses p-3 chart, max range 3, may only fire at shuttles/fighters and drones/plasma.

Rate of fire is one shot per impulse. Maximum number of shots in a turn is 10.

Ignores EW.

Basically a low-power p3 that is optimized for seeking weapon defense (and anti-fighter work).

Replaces G-racks on Fed ships.

Never used on Fed shuttles/fighters due to power requirements.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Six points of phaser damage is way too much. I originally had it at four points of damage, so maybe that works better. The reason for three (rather than two), is that the extra .5 of warhead reduction does matter and will add with other PDG hits (or phaser hits, for that matter).

Yes, I know that having a G-rack allows the ship to play all of those Stupid Drone Tricks(tm). But, the whole point of the proposal is to stop that. While the lack of ECM drones could be a bit of an issue, so be it. The point is to remove the drones.

The G-rack->PDG conversion was not truly 1-to-1. One or two racks were replace with the same number of systems. After that, some of the drone systems were replaced with Ph-1s. Even the BB wouldn't have more than four PDG; the rest of the drones go to Ph-1. (For example, the Fed BCF/G replaces the saucer drones with PDG, but the neck drones/plasma with Ph-1-FH.)

I didn't want to give it an "offensive" mode. It is a defensive system used to protect against seeking weapons. It can still be used against fighters and shuttles, but only in ADD mode.

The "phaser" effect is intended to disrupt plasmas; it isn't really a phaser shot. To do an actual phaser shot would require targetting and such. With the plasma, the round is able to penetrate the warhead somewhat as it discharges. Against a solid target, the energy discharge is so dispersed it won't appreciably affect the damage done as a result of the kinetic impact.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 12:35 am: Edit

Wouldn't the abolition of drones also see the end of Fed Fighters in this alternate reality?

I'ld look to have the G-rack replaced by a special Aegis/phaser-cooling system box, that allows regular Phasers to Rapid Pulse (upto 5Ph-1/2s (counted Ph-3s and Ph-3 shots from Ph-Gs as 0.5 phaser shots)) shots to be cooled by the system) and that'll then get hit on Drone Hits (the Phaser-3s of the Plus refit allow for some degree of point defense even after the Aegis/Cooler has been hit). It'ld only work if the Fed went without fighters but that could be an area alternate Fed wouldlook at.


Otherwise just make the Type-VI-drone/ADD-round into a canister of chemical reactants that react and cause a Phaser Blast to come out of the tube (like an X-Ray laser being an A-bomb in a titanium tube). Limit the range to R3. Fire Ph-3 shot from each one.
Fighters could be a less stable control platfom and suffer 3 ECM given to the target to avoid the problem of fighters becomming too powerful.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Instead of all this rigmarole, why not just use the Short-Range Cannon? (OE20.0), Omega 3. It is, after all, an ADD that does damage to ships and needs power to arm.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 11:47 am: Edit

Well, I admit I am not familiar with Omega. They kinda lost me with the Alpha Sector slosh-fest and the pink-eyed space bunnies. (Wot are ye afraid of? It's just a boomin' bunny!)

But anyway, the point (or at least my point) is not to damage ships, but to damage plasmas.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 12:31 pm: Edit

You forgot the space fairies and the Shad...er....SOULDRA....as well, Mike.

And the Giant Space Tree's...:)

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, August 23, 2022 - 11:29 pm: Edit

With the discussion going on about Drone-free Federation, would this be a good time to revisit this subject?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, August 24, 2022 - 09:54 am: Edit

This topic is basically redundant.

Fundamentally, the PDG here is just an earlier version of the CDS I have proposed in the drone-less Federation proposal. The differences are because of another decade plus of experience and because the CDS is part of a bigger whole, rather than presented in isolation. The name change is intentional, too.

So, no, this topic isn't relevant as anything other than an earlier version of the CDS idea.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation