Archive through August 14, 2002
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
Module J3: Back in the Cockpit:
Archive through August 14, 2002
After reading through every post here, I find myself in "concurrence" with Steve Petrick and David Kass. There is no alleged "drone/ESG" problem. I confirm Kass's assertion regarding ship tactical options for an accompanying fighter group, based on the SOP.
What I maintain is that, absent a true "problem," many players clamor for a Lyran fighter that has more of a Lyran "feel" to it. Something that is uniquely Lyran (notwithstanding my humble opinion, previously expressed, that fighters themselves aren't very Lyran to begin with).
The simplest solution, based on the rules already published, is to "liberalize" Lyran access to Klingon DF fighters (i.e., the Z1, ZD, and ZP designs), with brief mention that the Lyrans can choose, if desired, to replace drones with other already-existing DF supplementary systems (i.e., pods and RALADS). It may not be exciting, but I think it would work, and gives everyone the ability to do what they will with Lyran fighter groups.
Anything else creates additional unneeded complexity for a race that only has to rely on fighters as it's primary attrition unit for five to seven years, tops. (SVC's comment that the Lyrans continued to use fighters afterward is true of course, based on the published history. That same history bears out that the Lyran very heavily jumped into INT and PFs, moreso than any other race, as evidenced by virtually all of their later ships having mech-links, and capital ships [BCH, DN] qualifying as PFTs.)
Developing a Lyran fighter-only weapon system that is a drone, using some relationship to ESG technology, is...well, to borrow an oft-quoted phrase..."that way lies madness."
John. That is amazing. How far away are you from me. Well, it must have some merrit if two separate people come up with basicly the same idea at the same time.
Mike. There is nothing stopping capitol ships from using E-modulized drones but for the lack of drone RACKs on Lyran ships. So it is realy a fighter only solution.
John, I still can't believe how we posted that idea at the same time. Sheesh. Though in my propsal it would damage all units equaly just like a ESG.
SPP:
Thank you for the honor of commanding your CWE.
I agree that the Ph-2 is weaker than the drone(s) it replaces (at best, it might be allowed to use one pod rail and one standard rail--primarily so that Z-2 and Z-V could use it). On the other hand, it does give players who don't want drone in their Lyran fleet a functional option (not great, but not useless). Besides, if any Lyran players I'm facing want to handicap themselves, I'll let them go for it:-)
Hmmm, yes I'd forgotten that relaxing (J11.331) for the Lyrans would relax it by definition for the Klingons. I don't know whether it would be good to relax it for both or for neither. This might be partly simulated by not relaxing (J11.331), but by relaxing the corresponding rule for the Ph-2 pod only (and still have any ph-2 pod count under (J11.331)) and then giving the Lyran carriers a higher allocation (including Commander's Option Items) of the pods. Say that most carriers are limited to one per fighter by any means, but the Lyrans can have 2 per fighter (different logistics priority). The Klingons could still put 2 pods on fighters, but only by putting them on half their fighters.
My theory on the rails was that standard drone rails are "more functional" than pod rails in some manner (otherwise drone using races could mount drones on their pod rails and we don't want to go there). Thus I required one of the rails for the 2 space pod to be a "more functional" drone rail (to accomodate the extra mass, connections or whatever). Note that the RALAD is alread a non-drone system that can be mounted on drone rails but not pod rails. Perhaps calling it a pod is a bit misleading (on the other hand the name does fit). This would prevent the Tholians from using the Ph-2 pod (and yes, I agree they would find a good use for it). It could also prevent plasma fighters from using it, if desired (since plasma-D rails aren't quite drone rails by (J4.28)). On the other hand, if one wanted to give the plasma races the option, it could be ruled that the plasma-D rail has the "whatever" needed to carry Ph-2 pods.
A more speculative theory is based on the pictures of various fighters. Most drone fighters have "wings" with the drones (as do the Gorn and to a lesser extent the Romulan fighters). This has multiple rails adjacent to each other. On the other hand, the stinger is more of a compact shape (presumably to fit in launch tubes). Presumably on the stingers (and Tholian fighters) the pod rails are on opposite sides for balance and symmetry purposes and convenience (the separation to allow one deck crew to work on each rail simultaneously). Thus while an item could bridge the gap between two drone rails, there is no convenient way to do so on Hydran and Tholian fighters (it would have to wrap around a signficant portion of the fighter).
Well, if it's considered Andro tech, it's obviously out.
However, re: "If you can launch drones that way, why not just launch them from the transporter on the ship period."
That's easy to solve. It's incredibly dangerous (for some reason) to carry a drone that's fully prepped for launch around the ship or prep it in the transporter room, such that the crew won't do it any more than they'll move explosive ordinance faster than what is allowed in G25.3. (Drone racks/rails and suicide shuttles would do the "final prep" on the launching impulse for a normally-launched drone, so moving drones to be launched by those is only explosive ordinance dangerous before then.) A dedicated transporter-based drone launching system would avoid that risk, but it would use power, be resticted to type-VI drones because of the guidance disruption problems (thus limiting targets to those within 8 hexes of the drone's transport point), and require that you drop a shield to fire it. Much better to install an ordinary rack.
I have a different point-- when we're talking about the fighter problem, lets also note that the Lyrans, by not being a fighter heavy race, also have some pretty hefty advantages.
For one thing, the logistics tail taht every Hydran force has behind it is much smaller-- for another thing, that no matter how deadly the fighters, the Hydrans pay for it with smaller, less capable ships.
Yet there is no press to let the hydrans keep their fighters and get larger ships for the same BPV. The same should apply to the lyrans.
Smaller ships????
Half the time I take Hydrans in equal BPV games (which is 95% of what I play) I don't use fighters at all(can't afford the BPV). Their ships hold up fine BPV for BPV. Fighters or no fighters.
The Ranger is a little short ranged as is the Lancer, but if its got a Hellbore on it it usualy does great. You've got to love those mono-hulls on whatever you take!
Sorry, Charles, that's just not my experience with Hydrans. I should add, though I do like my (and I have to say Johns) idea, I don't see a big Lyran fighter problem either. No one has realy explained it to me. I asked. Twice.
Gonna agree with Loren and Steve on this one. I have yet to hear a convincing NEED for a change to Lyran fighters. If they haven't spelled it out well enough for you, the trick is the TIMING of fighter and drone launches with ESG interactions. Simply arrange for the ESGs to be down when fighters and/or drones are moving through the neighborhood. They have these convenient ON/OFF switches to help facilitate this.
And as Steve has pointed out on numerous occasions, all of the modifications proposed are either:
A. Technologically impossible
B. Game-breaking due to technology bleeding, or
C. Tactically inferior to the current system
About the only thing I can see as "useful" would be a couple of Lyran fighter "designs", that look more "Lyran" but are just a bit inferior to the Klingon designs. This could represent the efforts of some local Lyran noble to design and build "in house." I envision designs similar to Jessicas (catamaran style - 2 ph-3, 1 type-I, 2 type-VI) with a trimaran heavy fighter. While inferior to the Klingon designs, these could be "seen" as precursurs to the Lyran INT/PF program.
Learning to use the ESG requires practice and planning just like the cloak, the PPD, or engine doubleing. None of them are magic carpets.
In my experience, I agree with the Steves and many others, most of the time the problem is not the fighters but the experience, ability, or temperment of the player.
Robert
I will go along with SPP and others in problem in regard to the usefulness of drone armed drone fighters.
It would be nice to have a Lyran flavoured "droneless" fighter but I don't fancy any of the solutions so far.
So my idea to be shot down stolen and shamelessly from elsewhere.
The Ly fighter.
Technobabble.
Lyrans designed a very small fighter that was especially designed to pack 2 per shuttle box. It took rather a long time to develop hence the Lyrans late entry into fighter groups.
Y171 speed 13 damage 5 armed P-3 and a RALAD
Y173 speed 15 damage 6 armed P-3 and 2 RALADs
Y177 speed 15 damage 7 armed 2 P-3 and 2 RALADs
Phasers and RALADs have a Forward hexrow firing arc FHR only
I could swear that, somewhere along the way, half-space shuttles were placed on the Auto-Reject List. 'Course, I could be wrong....
Even if half-space fighters were not already on the auto-reject list (and they are), an indigenous Lyran fighter was specifically rejected by SVC at 2251 hours on 12 Aug in this topic.
Hmm. Lyrans can't, I assume, match Hydrans or Kzinti in numbers of fighters, and both the Kzinti and Hydrans are good at drone defense, so the more modest drone wave that Lyran fighters can put out is presumably of less use than that which could be created by Klingon operated fighters. So what's the role of Lyran fighters? As has been pointed out, a direct fire role is not tactically feasible, limiting the Lyran to some sort of stand off attack/defense role.
How about this: Lyrans use their normally equipped Klingon fighters for stand off attacks against poor drone defense targets (freighters in a convoy raid etc.) If they're anticipating the need for a fleet defense fighter, they replace the drones with half strength T-bombs (5 points of damage). These can be droped by the fighter in the path of incoming drone waves, used to divert Hydran fighters etc. And they don't interfere too much with the main fleet's operation, since the fleet can use their ESG's to sweep through an area littered with mini T-bombs with minimal ill effects.
Klingons, Feds and Kzinti could copy this system, but they tend to have enough fighters to mount true offensive drone strikes, and seem to mainly use fighters as extra offense (or are well equiped enough with phasers to not need a more defensive system on their drone rails if opperating as fleet defense).
Once interceptors and PFs are developed, the Lyrans gain a more effective offensive attrition craft, but might retain fighters for their defensive role.
Apologies if I'm repeating a previously rejected idea.
I'm guessing the lack of fighter firepower is one of the main reasons why they pushed for PF technology so early, to offset their figther program. Once they aquired PF's, they had less of a need for fighters and used them sparingly.
Loren,
I live in denver, Thats absolutly incredible! I think a lot of people missed that post thought.
Has any consideration been given to a cluster bomb warhead? I realize that any drone warhead would be copyable by all races.
Something along the lines of scatterring a hex with bomblets that cause 2 points of damage (or one point) to unshielded targets (shielded targets would be immune). Developed by the Lyrans, but copied by other races (this would be nice for the Lyrans as their PFs could fly through them without damage, although they would detonate and clear the hex). Perhaps an ESG takes no damage if it sweeps through the hex, but otherwise clears the bomblets from the hex (they are the equivalent of typical debris found in space, and their explosion is insufficient to cause damage). These have the same availability as MW drones for all races except for Lyrans, who developed them and produced them in greater numbers to be used in conjunction with interceptor/PF operations and their SCS.
So, why would a Lyran use these instead of normal drones? Because of their fondness for area effect weapons, the concern over numerous smaller targets (both drones and fighters), and the ability to integrate the weapon system with PF and ESG operations. Further, these would be a CAP weapon as compared to a Strike weapon (which would be a normal drone).
Somehow this seems to have been overlooked. (or not interesting enough for comment). But the most amazing thing happened a bit back. John Pepper posted an idea on Aug. 13, 07:42 PM. While he was posting, I was busy correcting the grammar and spelling on the near exact same idea. We live about a thousand miles apart. Read the posts. It's uncanny. It's in the archive right above this (Archive Aug. 13 #2).
Recently Klingon legendary Ace Petrick atomized the prototype and only copy of Lyran mad genius Frazzle Fur's "Drone Breaker" fighter Pod and eliminated all hope of making drones obsolete.
In lew of this event Frazzle Furs design team returned to the lab and racked their brains for something new. They came up with this.
Drone Breaker system II
The lyrans installed the DB in license built Z-2 ftrs. The system is fully integrated and cannot be removed. It is not modular. It is not a Pod.
The system was deemed a viable Lyran replacement for Ralads, as these had major interaction problems with ESG's. The DB does not interact with ESG's in any way.
The DB allows ftrs to carry pods or drones for strike purposes while retaining a marginal anti drone ability.
The system operates under the following rules;
Roll
range0-1
range 2
range 3 s
S=success in breaking lock on of the drone
- = no effect
B= burnout.
* A DB ftr may attempt this 3 times per turn.
* a +1 is added to the die roll for each consecutive turn that the DB system is used.
* a ftr may not control seeking weapons while using the DB.
This system was tried on a ship and found to when burnout occurred to knock out the Sensor array circuits as if they were critically hit.
The Klingons felt that there was too much sacrifice for their forces to employ this fighter. First it was a Z-2, second they couldn't control their drones if it was on. Third Ralads could be used vs drones and fighters. Fourth they didn't have ESG interaction problems.
Loren very interesting indeed, would the Emodule split its' damage similarly vs. drone waves? perhaps a target size modifier should be considered. Like 2 type I drones equal one target? Just some thoughts.
I intended it to work just like an ESG, deviding it'senergy equaly between all units in the hex. So if you have three fighters, two drones, and one ship each would take one point of damage. If you had twelve drones in one hex, six (randomly picked) would take one point of damage each. Simularly, due to its ESG roots, if there was only one unit in the hex that unit would take all six damage.
I would like to add: This is a drone module. It would be put on standard drones in place of one 1/2 space explosive module. No specal drones need be developed.
Hugh. Thanks for checking it out. I thought Johns and My idea would get lost in the haystack.
SVC and SPP: Is the Posts of Aug 13,07:42 and 07:47 possible? I was going for that special little goody that was useful, not too powerful, and uniquely Lyran.
Is it possible? Well, with some hand waving and engineering BS, we can explain why it doesn't violate any previous background. It is a good thing to add to the game and thus worthy of this warping of reality? I'm not convinced, but we'll see if anybody salutes.
Stephen W. Fairfield:
There is an inherent problem that you are proposing something to adhere to YOUR doctrine, i.e., the doctrine you imagine the Lyrans are using.
And it is of course the problem that I operate Lyran fighters under my own doctrine.
If I bring a Lyran carrier into a battle with Kzintis, I tend to use the drones mostly in the counter-drone/fleet defense role. This is because the Kzintis can mass enough drones in a fleet or large squadron/battlegroup battle to overwhelm the ESG(s) of any one (sometimes more than one) Lyran ship. They have the drone launch rate to hit a Lyran ship that, for whatever reason, is temporarily unable to raise an ESG in its own defense (ESG just dropped, ship lost its ESGs due to other damage, etc./what have you). In these situations, I can have my fighters launch their drones to counter the drones the Kzintis are trying to mass on my ships. My fighters can do this from up to 35 hexes range in theory, but in all practicallity can seldom do it from more than 15 to 20 hexes range (from the targeted Kzinti drone). This allows my ships to concentrate their direct-fire weapons on the Kzintis, rather than shooting down Kzinti drones to some extent. Cycle their ESG better because it is harder for the Kzintis to mass a drone strike effectively. Save power (by not having to recharge the ESGs as often).
In the "strike" role, I generally (but not always) prefer to use my fighter's drones as the follow up attack. When the ships go in for the ESG overun the drones follow them, forcing the Kzintis to save weapons to defend from the drone strike and not fire them at my ships as they overrun. (I have been known to hit Kzinti ADDs with hit-and-run raids as part of my overruns, really messes with their minds as they seldom guard them and yet expect to use them to stop my fighter's drones.) Sometimes I will lead with the drone strike if the Kzinti ships are weak on ADDs (few CMs or DWs in their battle force). And in that case I have been known to both "lead and follow", i.e., have the first fighter launch wave of drones go in ahead of my ships with the second wave launched when the over run hits to get at the Kzinti ships that are most vulnerable afterwards. Sometimes I do not even launch the follow-on wave of drones as the threat keeps the Kzintis from emptying their weapons.
Consequently, I do not favor any weapon for my fighters (in particular any of the ones proposed so far) over drones. Drones provide the maximum flexibility, the ability of a fighter to reduce a Kzinti drone strike on a Lyran ship that is 10 or more hexes from the fighter with an assurity that the drone WILL be destroyed (a disruptor cannot do that) short of a major intervention by the Kzintis (scout channels to turn off my counter-drone, long-range disruptor or phaser fire to kill my counter-drone), and that intervention on their part is simply another plus.
I can, if you want, also expound on my general use versus Hydrans, and there are independent carrier strike roles (raids by fighters without carrier or other units be present) where I find drones better than direct-fire weapons (at least any so far proposed).
RE:E-Module
I can imagine some scenarios/fiction for both SFB and GPD with that one too. The development and transport of the ultra-top secret package to the Lyran capitol.