Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through June 20, 2007	25		06/20 10:54pm
	Archive through June 22, 2007	25		06/22 07:31pm

Gary:

... Lucy ... in the sky ... with ... diamonds ...

(yes it was a joke)

By David Crew (Catwholeaps) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 12:35 am: Edit

K2 ala J2 is easy...

'PF MegaPacks': PF gains all the benefits of packs, with none of the drawbacks. Doubles the number of plasma torpedoes (but does not increase the firing rate) or adds 2 360 degree phasers and adds 3 more C Hull. PF loses nimble benefits. Costs 50% BPV of PF.

'Remote control PF's': All firing rate limitations are removed.

A remote control (Mega) Gorn PF instantly banned by house rule in most SFB groups (just like remote controlled plasma fighters are... ).

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 06:16 pm: Edit

*whips out The Cricket Bat of Doom and proceeds to pummel Crew for posting a Crime Against SFB*

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 07:50 pm: Edit

David Crew: All kidding aside, do most of the groups you know ban remote-controlled plasma fighters?

If so, that's a bit unbalanced IMHO... in the middle of an Admiral's game between the Roms/Feds and RC fighters have been used on both sides, to no great unbalance. In fact, if anything, it's benefitted the Feds more, as they can uncork huge drone waves from RC fighters outside of any reasonable firing range, whereas the plasma fighters need to get stupid-close to use their plasmas for anything more than drone defense or an overrun deterrent.

By David Crew (Catwholeaps) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 02:54 am: Edit

Dale: My 'group' consists of the PBEM FOG games at the moment - 20+ players in each one - so it is somewhat representative.

We ban remote controlled fighters period (plasma or drone) - but not megapacks.

Some of the reasons are peculiar to FOG PBEM games - we don't want too many seeking weapons on the board as these are 20+ ship fleet actions.

However, the principle reason we ban remote control is that late war (where FOG is set) having a fighter able to launch 100 points of sabot plasma at you at the touch of a button (look at the mega-heavy late war plasma fighters) is too unbalancing for the sort of maps and games that we play.

If you are toodling around with G-SF's with two speed 32 D-torps, remote control is fine and dandy. If you are zooming around with a Tribune-FM with 2 F's and 6 D's, all saboted, remote control takes on a whole new complexion. The Fed equivalent is comparing an F-18 (2 I, 2 VI, speed 20) to an F-14DM (8+ drones, all speed 32).

We ban 'fighter packs' (using fighters as a scatterpack) for the same reason.

We severely rewrote the plasma-D drogue for the same reason.

It isn't so much that remote-control is unbalancing - it is that remote-control + mega packs + late war fighters + sabots + WS-III + small fixed map + a desire to avoid 7+ turn games is unbalancing. Remote control is the straw that breaks that camels back.

In a different environment, with different dynamics, remote control may be just dandy. In the games I play (5 turns or less, things go boom lots, after 3 hours I get bored and go home) remote controlled fighters are too powerful.

(Note: Remote controlled fighters were an OK idea right up until the launch limits were removed. That is the unbalancing bit IMO - everything else about them is just fluff).

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 02:41 pm: Edit

David: Gotcha. Of course in any campaign it's up to the Ref/Players, I totally respect that. Banning all RC seems more fair than banning RC only on plasma.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 07:09 pm: Edit

One could always consider enforcing the launch limits.

That was more or less our solution to plasma drogues.

By William G. Matthews (Billm) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 02:40 pm: Edit

I would think that the Lyrans would have looked into producing PF varients that were optimized for combat on the Kizinti front and the Hydran front. The combat reqirements are very different and mutually exclusive. Improving the drone defenses of the bobcat would realy help out in the Kizinti Theater. More stand off fire power would help against the Hydrans. Some suggestions for the Kizinti combat theater designs.

replace each P2 with 2 P3.

replace each p3 with an ADD rack, or an E rack

combine the above.

replace each p3 with a fighter mech link and carry 2 ZY with booster packs or mega packs.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Maybe we can make a PF Bomber Conveyer, a bomb-con.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 07:56 pm: Edit

OOOH!!!

I want to see Tos sell this idea to SPP!

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 02:45 am: Edit

Isn't that a mine-laying PF?

B^)

By Jacob Karpel (Psybomb) on Saturday, January 09, 2010 - 09:50 am: Edit

I've looked for a while but didn't find this one, forgive me if it's popped up before. Also, yay for a year an a half between posts

One reasonable variant would be for the Kzinti MRN to have a Disruptor-based side-pod. Not sure if, for game balance, it would have anything else on it, but if so it would be a Ph-3.

In historical terms, the MRN-DI would have been used in traditionally drone-hostile theaters, especially on the Lyran front (since Drones v ESG tends to get expensive and the PFs don't have reloads to waste) and occasionally against Klingons (who mount numerous ADDs, after a while). Also would have been extensively used against Andromedans, due to the way PAs work.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Saturday, January 09, 2010 - 10:30 am: Edit

Jacob, my guess is that this would be close to a non-starter. The resulting PF would be armed with 3 disruptors and 1 Ph-1. To my knowledge, no PF exists that is armed with more than two heavy direct fire weapons. That even includes the Orion, which has option mount limits prohibiting combinations of more than two heavy weapons, including disruptors. Seems to be an unspoken, but religiously followed rule when it comes to DF on PFs.

That aside, I think such a PF would have some severe operational limitations. PFs with two disruptors like the Lyran BOB, Klingon G1B and Tholian ARC are already pretty power hungry. The Tholian is arguably the best of the bunch with 16 power. But even with that, that second heavy weapon has a notable impact on the ship's power curve, usually in the form of reduced EW or speed. Adding a third disruptor to any of these designs would create PFs that were pretty power hungry. And with only a single phaser-1, its defensive armament would be easy to overwhelm.

I think against the fleets you mention, the MRN-B modules are the best options if you want more direct firepower at the expensive of drones. Much more power efficient, and if you're not overloading disruptors, roughly equivalent in damage output inside range 8. Against the Lyrans specifically, I think you would definately want drones, as they give the PFs a way to bust down ESGs and get in for close range strikes without becoming ESG-bait themselves.

All that said, I don't know that the idea is completely "dead-on-arrival". There are the plasma PFs which have pretty massive PL-F armaments with a launch limit per turn to keep them in check. They can get power hungry too, at least as a game drags on, and some, like the Rom CEN, can be pretty phaser poor. So, maybe, perhaps, there is some way to put three disruptors on a single PF, with some sort of limitation in place. Maybe a suicidal level of shock if more than a single overload is fired or something other than FA arcs to make it hard to get them in all in arc. Maybe something else. Just random thoughts.

So, not utterly impossible in my mind, but a very tough sell.

By Jacob Karpel (Psybomb) on Saturday, January 09, 2010 - 12:47 pm: Edit

I didn't imagine them working alone, more likely only one or maybe two inserted into a standard flotilla. Perhaps paired with the -A or -E for defense/offense mix. Maybe even in with a PF-N that carried highly specialized drone loads, but that's getting far afield.

I'd thought about the power curve, but the MRN has 15 power to work with. It could raise shields, go speed 30, and keep standard loads on all 3 of them while still generating the two points of ECM it's allowed. This is still running a tight budget, and it can't afford to reinforce or recharge the one phaser while doing so, but there it is.

Thanks for the quick review and critique, and especially for the ideas about Shock and Arcs. They will make it a much easier sell if I ever propose it for a patrol scenario. Also about the -B, which I'd been thinking of mostly in terms of anti-Plasma.

By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Saturday, January 09, 2010 - 12:55 pm: Edit

I'd rather use the phasers myself. If you're too tight on power, you can't overload the Disruptors. If you can't overload, combat effective wise I rather have the flexibility of the phasers, and save on energy for other purposes. Not to mention your disruptors are limited to range 10 so you can't snipe, the only other real advantage they have over phasers.

Yes, there are probably times where the Disruptors are better, like against Andros, or if you took some Phaser Capacitor Critical Hit I suppose.

Though if you're taking critical hits your PF is probably toast anyway. Warm, buttery toast.

By Jacob Karpel (Psybomb) on Saturday, January 09, 2010 - 02:45 pm: Edit

The PF could execute a very terminal attack, overloading all three (plus following with a Ph-1 shot next impulse through the down shield it it was previously charged) if it's willing to drop ECM and go to speed 15. I call it very terminal because doing so will likely end up with a scrap pile after all is said and done on both sides of the shots. There are only so many speed games it can play, after all

It is unfortunate that having the side pods be a Disruptor LF/RF and an APR would be horribly overpowered, even if the BPV got boosted. Being able to overload on all three while maintaining speed 30 would just be too much. This goes double when a flotilla could consist of L, S, 2x MRN-DI, and 2x PF-N or MRN-A.

From the way this is looking, the disruptor-based Kzinti PF would have to be its own build and have two disruptors, rather than being based on the MRN and having three. I think I'm going to sit down and tweak that one then send it over to the proposals side once I get it right.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, January 09, 2010 - 03:22 pm: Edit

This is just a comment, not me shutting down the discussion.

One of the problems you are going to have is shock. Not just on the small hull, but the fact that these are MODULES, and are mounted off the PF's centerline. The shock of firing heavy weapons from that location is likely to rip the module off the PF, even if the disruptor was not overloaded.

There are reasons why there are no existing Kzinti PFs with heavy weapons at the end of their boom arms.

Also note that there are no Kzinti SHIPS with direct-fire heavy weapons (biggest weapon out there is a phaser-1) mounted on the ends of their drone arms.

By Jacob Karpel (Psybomb) on Saturday, January 09, 2010 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Ok, definitely missed that. Thanks SP, I'll keep it in mind as I toy with the design some more. I'll save the rest for when I finish it and put it up at Proposals where it belongs, now that it's not just a variant of a current build. That said...


OFFICIAL MENTION OF SHIP IN ANOTHER TOPIC.
#########################################
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: New Ships: R05: KZINTI PROPOSALS: Disruptor PF
Jacob Karpel January 9, 2010
Race: All
Time: Y181+
Type: Pod
Hull: PF-N
General outline of idea: Kzinti PF based around two Disruptor mounts.
#########################################
PER SVC DIRECTIVE, COMMENTS ON THIS SHIP
SHOULD GO IN ITS OWN TOPIC, NOT THIS ONE.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Monday, March 19, 2018 - 05:04 pm: Edit

I apologize if this has been regarded as a dead thread, but I'm new to posting...

Some years ago, I came up with a conversion of the Lyran INT that added a central hull (trimaran). The armaments that were added were a Ph-2 on FA and a DISR on FX. These came at the expense of the DISR on FA in the bridge of the INT.

Beyond that, I just filled the (new) central hull with what was needed to be added to the INT to give it a systems box count equal to that of the Bobcat.

By comparison with the Bobcat and Bobtail...

Bobcat: 2 DISR + 2 PH-2
Bobtail: 0 DISR + 4 PH-2
Straycat: 1 DISR + 3 PH-2

As such, I felt (perhaps wrongly?) that such a gunboat wouldn't be too out of line.

Robert Cole (if you're reading this), you made a beautiful SSD of a flotilla of these things and posted it on your Shipyards of Vega website.

Unfortunately for me, the computer I had a copy of it on is long gone, so I no longer have any copies of those SSDs. By chance, Robert, do you still have it?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 19, 2018 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Heavy PFs (including trimaran Lyrans) were declared "engineering impossible, never to be added to the game" about 20 years ago.

But there's nothing wrong with asking. While it would seem obvious that something that obvious would have been done by now if it were ever going to be, sometimes something obvious hasn't been done because nobody thought of it or it's part of something bigger.

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Monday, March 19, 2018 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Jeffrey: As you seem to be aware, on most forums replying to a tread that is more than a few weeks old is considered to be a fairly serious breach of forum etiquette. "Necroing" a thread. In this forum that is not the case. Here this is all considered to be an information archive and replying to a thread that is 10, or even 20, years old is not any type of breach of etiquette.

SVC maintains his forum pretty meticulously compared to most. If he didn't think a thread was relevant anymore, he would remove it. If a discussion is still here, nobody will complain if you revive it.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, March 20, 2018 - 12:19 am: Edit

Jeff;

Trimarans generally mean the published Heavy PFs from Stellar Shadows.

As an upgrade from interceptors to PF standards, it appears decent. Similar designs have not passed muster in the past.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Tuesday, March 20, 2018 - 09:48 am: Edit

A trimaran interceptor isn't really a "heavy" PF, it's just an alternative to the standard PF. All PFs (exclusive of interceptors) are essentially "heavy" (i.e. upscaled) interceptors.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 20, 2018 - 11:12 am: Edit

While it would theoretically be just an alternate PF, a trimaran interceptor isn't a new idea, isn't really needed (since it would by definition by box-for-box identical to a real PF), and raises questions about why there is no trimaran heavy PF. It's a path to bad places and a path that we don't need to follow.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Tuesday, March 20, 2018 - 11:20 am: Edit

Thank you, all!

Respectfully, SVC, what I had was not a heavy PF, although I do understand where the confusion might arise from.

Douglas, you phrased what I was trying to say perfectly; the StrayCat was meant as an alternative to the Bobcat, possibly useful for a feud between Lyran nobles.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, March 20, 2018 - 04:42 pm: Edit

I would think that this would be an either/or design, i.e. you would have the Bobcat, or a "trimaraned" interceptor. It's an interesting idea that matches the upgrade path used by Lyran ships, and if it had been proposed at the right time in the 1980's, it might be the Bobcat.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Tuesday, March 20, 2018 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Maybe this was actually an LDR unit given their fondness for tri-hull designs. After acquiring Lynx interceptors from the Lyran Star Empire (R14.PF1) they experimented with converting them into trimarians thinking (correctly) that a slighly larger gunboat would be more efficient (especially for their small fleet). The LDR was probably aware the Lyrans were working on a larger design (the Bobcat) but were uncertain whether these would be made available for sale or licensed production so were attempting to reverse engineer the Lynx to create their own full-sized PF. These efforts were abandoned after the LDR convinced the Lyran Empire to sell them the right to build Bobcats under license. Had this agreement not been reached, the LDR might have attempted to build this design from scratch (or acquire more Lynx for conversion) but it is unlikely that they would have succeeded (perhaps these prototypes were just a ploy by the LDR to improve their bargaining position).

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Wednesday, March 21, 2018 - 11:47 am: Edit

SVC:

"A path to a bad place..."

Agreed wholeheartedly.

I tried doing something similar for other races.

The Gorn "Double Bubble" version of their INT was so bad that I think Luis and Walter Alvarez would claim it was from the Baptistina Group and landed in Chicxulub.

The Tholian "Double Diamond" was so bad it gave pause to the statement that "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend"

The Orion "Double Hull" got the thief who stole the designs arrested; not by the people he stole them from, but by the people he stole them FOR.

(... and should I stop now before my jokes get me banned from posting?)