SPP,

SVC's description is "This is, basically, a great big anti-drone". As E2.14 describes a phaser IV as "...used only on bases.", we could indicate that the ASM is "To large to fit in a standard ADD rack and incompatable with ship mounted drone racks". In addition we could also prohibit them in Scatter packs is that proves to be desirable for game balance with the same "Not compatable" line.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 04:54 pm: Edit

I'm just amazed this discussion has lasted as long as it has. Having the ability to do an average of 7 points of DF damage that is immune to EW to a ship at range 5 for the cost of a single drone rail is so huge, that its even still being discussed amazes me.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 05:05 pm: Edit

Mark Kuyper:

Sure, all of that might come to pass. HOWEVER the point is that whether it comes to pass or not, it has to be found, considered, a decision made, and the explanation incorporated into the rules. Otherwise you publish a rule and then some bright boy says "hey, its a drone, so I can put it in a scatterpack, right?"

As I said, I can "fully agree" that they not be mounted in scatterpacks, but there is an existing rule that says ADDs can operate from scatterpacks. This creates the essential caveat that obviously the MRS shuttle's fire control system can handle the situation, so why can't a shuttle do what it normally does in scatterpack mode?

But, at this stage also, I am not going to deny anything except wherein I run into a rules conflict (look back at what I have said to this point, every bit of it has been essentially "this rule allows AD rounds to do this, this rule prohibits AD rounds from doing that". If this becomes a rule to go out for playtest, SVC will decide what it says, and will then be modified as appropriate from the playtest data.

I mean, heck, if we wanted to at this stage we could include a rule that just says "ASMs cannot be fired at bases as an interaction with the Positional Stabilizer of the base causes the ASM to automatically miss." And mayhap "ASMs cannot be fired at targets inside an atmosphere because they cannot hit targets at less than 1 hex range and will burn up from friction at any longer range." But note that an ASM launcher on a planet will be able to fire at targets outside of the atmosphere.

By Ryan Peck (Trex) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 05:18 pm: Edit

I'm with Andy on this one. This system as proposed will turn fighters into major ship killers.

Imagine this. A fighter closes at high speed, and EM. It is getting ECM support from pods and CV and what ever else. This little buggers are hard to hit. The 12 of them close to just outside of range 5. On impulse 25 you fire at them (so your weapons cycle for next turn). Most of your weapons miss because of the ECM rules. They then speed change up, drop EM and close to 5. The remainng 9 or so fighters light up 1 ASM each. Next impulse they either fire the next round, and mizia away what weapons surived, or HET away. "Sratch on cruiser". If you dont fire at the turn's end you also lose as the fighters have prevented you from doing any damage to them at all.

I REALLY think this is not a balanced weapon.

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 05:19 pm: Edit

I'm amazed as well. This weapon is broken. This is better than a P-1 pod.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 05:47 pm: Edit

SPP,

I do understand the damage resolution problem...I'm still just trying to define it myself before going any further with it. My current line of thinking, though (which I would welcome any help with) is that ASM's would be resolved after the Direct Fire Step, but before the Aegis Fire Step. The reasons for this are these:

1: Firing after direct fire weapons makes it a bit more dangerous to use, and gives the target vessel a chance to pop the fighter carrying it BEFORE they can fire. This sort of mimics the 4 impulse delay posed by Mark Kyuper, in that the ASM is harder to aim.

2: It resolves the question of the shields status; when the ASM fires, everything else is recorded, so you'll know whether or not you penetrate the shield and start doing full damage.

3: It gives the fighter an opportunity to get the ASM fired before aegis-contolled weapons rip it to bits. Get to range five or less to an aegis-equipped escort, and your fighter is toast.

That's my current sequence. I still need to play it out and see if it works best this way.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Ryan Peck:

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

I have a cruiser. Let's say it is a D5K with Y175 Refit (126 BPV assuming all type-IF drones).

You come screaming in with a fighter squadron, let's assume 12x HAAS fighters (BPV 98 BPV with no drone adjustment costs and assuming one EWF, but if we assume that these weapons are going to cost at least 1 BPV each, equal to a type-IF upgrade, we can add another 23 BPV to your fighter squadron including the cost of the upgrading the EWF's type-VI drones), for a total of 121 BPV.

But wait, you also have to pay the BPV for that carrier, assuming the smallest weakest Kzinti Carrier to able to carry a dozen fightes, that means we are adding 65 BPV for the DDV, plus 16 BPV to upgrade 16 type-Is to type-F, giving you 202 BPV to my 126.

Note, no escorts listed for the DDV formally, so I did not provide you with one, but that would up your BPV against my cruiser even more.

By God I had better lose.

And that gets back to the fallacy of analyzing any system or proposal outside of its combat sphere.

And we are assuming warp booster packs on your fighters, and some reason I had to sit there and let them get to range five as opposed to maneuvering, or perhaps just running at say speed 29 myself until you dropped EM to go speed 30 (at which point I drop battery and accelerate to speed 30.

More capable (and more expensive) carriers can be had, but they will come with escorts, giving me more BPV to use myself.

At this point your argument (not in the sense of yelling, but in the sense of your point of view) is tantamount to saying that we cannot add a C8 to the game because it would kill a D7.

And of course if I have my own fighters, I can, as I alluded to before, have them operate in the counter-fighter role versus your fighters, which means your fighters would be slaughtered because they cannot use ASMs against my fighters.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Mike Raper:

You said: 1: Firing after direct fire weapons makes it a bit more dangerous to use, and gives the target vessel a chance to pop the fighter carrying it BEFORE they can fire. This sort of mimics the 4 impulse delay posed by Mark Kyuper, in that the ASM is harder to aim.

And I fear my response is "HUNH"?

This is the same thing that Douglas E. Lampert said. I fear that there is some confusion. There is nothing in the rules that says "if the hellbore damage in the first hellbore option step destroys a phaser-1 announced as firing during that same impulse, that phaser-1 does not fire."

The Direct-Fire Weapons Segment is broken down into stages. In the first stage "Direct-Fire Allocation Stage (6D1)" all direct-fire is allocated. If the fighters allocate their ASMs to fire, then in the Direct-Fire Weapons Fire Stage (6D2) they fire, whether the fighter is blown to hades by a PPD pulse, or a hellbore in the first hellbore firing option is irrelevant. All weapons allocated to fire that impulse WILL FIRE, they in point of fact HAVE fired as part of the announcement of what weapons were allocated to fire.Even if the B10 blows your little PF into a billion-gazillion pieces with a full scale range zero alpha strike, your PF still fires its puny response if it declared it was firing on that same impulse.

By Ryan Peck (Trex) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:05 pm: Edit

SPP,

I'm away from my rule books right now (boss frowns on such things sitting at my desk )

We could argue specific tactics all night (well, if you do this, then I can do that etc). The point I was trying to make is I see these weapons, and the threat of these weapons to be very powerfull. To the point were it would be very easy for them to break the game. I dont see what they would add to the game.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:11 pm: Edit

SPP. Sorry to say, but fighters are just not that good at killing other fighters. You're going to launch drones? I've got chaff and 1-2 Ph-3s...not exactly a big issue. IME, it is ships (and PFs) that stop fighters, not other fighters. I fear DISR and ADDs far more than Klingon drones. If I'm approaching with 10 ECM and don't have to get within ADD range to cause serious damage, I'm golden.

Even vs 2 D5Ks, those 12 fighters are going to crush you far worse than 12 ST-2 fighters and, what makes it even worse is they can do this at R5 so more of them will live to reload and do it again. (plus, to even your experience, lets say 2 D5Ks are attacking a planet with a large FGB or you're defending vs my independent fighter strike - you have a BPV advantage and I'll still win)

I still can't believe I'm actually having this conversation...

By Ryan Peck (Trex) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:13 pm: Edit

This has to be a first, I am agreeing with both Andy and MJC. The end is nigh

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Ryan Peck:

Your boss frowns on having rulebooks at your desk? Gee, I wonder why? Mine encourages me to keep them handy for some reason (GRIN).

As to what they would add to or break in the game.

Well, as noted, a full squadron strike could inflict a healthy amount of damage if it was not countered. So in essence what they add to the game is, effectively, the "torpedo run". And they make CAP important. Player A cannot afford to fight in a battle with player B if player B has a carrier because an unopposed strike by the fighters could inflict heavy damage. But to accomplish this, the fighters will have to fly to relatively close range while being engaged by everything the opposing side could throw at them. And if Player A has his own carrier, then Player B cannot afford to simply mount a mass torpedo strike with his full squadron because the fighters would be virtually at the mercy of Player-A's fighters if they were operating in a CAP role with normal drones.

I honestly can see this (on fighters) as a whole new dynamic, and have (over the course of the discussion) begun to find the effect on carrier operations interesting, both in the "carrier duel" and the "Carrier as fleet adjunct" roles.

I am, myself, not currently enamored of allowing these things to be mounted on ships. The Kzinti BC overruning my D7 with a flight of standard drones leading that I will have to swat, and then a slavo of four of these things when he hits range five is enough to make me shudder.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:16 pm: Edit

Personally, I'm not as worried about ASMs on fighters as I am about them on ships/PFs. As such I'd love to see some "No use in Scatter pack/ship mounted racks" type rule tossed in.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:20 pm: Edit

SPP,

OK following your example of using 'balanced' forces.

Lets propose: Y173
A Klingon D5V, D5E, F5E, 12 Z-V fighters
103+120+100+96=419

verses

A Fed NVL+, NEC, FFE+, 12 F18 fighters.
120+116+80+96=412

Fighter-wise
The Klingon fighters have 2-Type 1 each, speed 12
The Feds have 2-Type 1, 2-TYpe 6 each, speed 15

If even 1/2 of the F18's have ADMs (which you won't know of course because I imagine you won't have to reveal drone loadout on a fighter unless you get a high tactical intelligence level on it.) 6 F18's with 2 ADM each will still hose the Klingons if they get range 5.

The Klingons are going to be like this until Y177 when the Z-Y comes out. Or they replace some fighters with Z-P's to phasers them at longer range.

Even though it sounds like a good weapon for fighters, my vote would be say it is a limited availability weapon (with some technobabble about need zortonium or something) for the warhead. It just makes guessing wrong if your opponent has ADMs on his fighters or not a big crap-shoot.

So this lowly NVL group, has the potentional to beat the snot out of the Klingons.

By Ryan Peck (Trex) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:23 pm: Edit

Sorry I should have said "I dont see them adding anything fun to the game."

-If a counter to these guys are other fighters I now will be FORCED to buy fighters just in case you bring these guys along, This includes the CV and as you pointed out Escorts.

-With the ECM rules being what they are, I am now FORCED to spend tons of power to counter the cheap ECM these guys bring with them. This means my D5 will be going much slower (making it easier for the fighters to catch them). To add insult to injury I will still have crappy shots at them, and nothing will stop me from being bum rushed after I fire (Isn't there something in the tourney rules about NOT have to take a bad shot a cloaked ship, I see this as the same thing.)

Net resault I now have less BPV to buy real warships with, and less power to do the things I like to do.

As it stands now, it is hard enough to kill fighters at range 5, lets not give them a weapon they can shoot from this range, that will toast my ships. These ASM guys will be making '3 point shots' with near impunity all day long.

I would reduce the damage to 1d6 at the very least.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:27 pm: Edit

SPP,
I'd not be so worried about to Kzinti BCs. I'm worried about what this does to Kzinti FFs.

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:28 pm: Edit

SPP:

You wrote:

"And that gets back to the fallacy of analyzing any system or proposal outside of its combat sphere."

I must respectfully disagree. I believe it is fallacy to analyze a system or proposal INSIDE its combat sphere. In my view, this is what playtesting is for, which is done usually after an initial analysis of a proposed system has been accomplished.

My underlying reason for taking an opposing view is this: any time two players discuss how any system will perform inside the combat sphere, it must take into account player choice regarding tactics. Unfortunately, that is nearly impossible to actually quantify, given what is generally referred to as "the fog of war."

In your examples:

What if you did have some reason to "sit there and let them get to range five...?"

What if you did not/could not accelerate to speed 30?

What if the game wasn't fun for you, and you lost patience, and turned in to the fight, instead of running at high warp?

What if the fighters are by themselves, without the carrier?

What if it was an equal BPV battle, and you had an E4 or F5 with your D5 as an escort?

It is because of questions generally regarding CHOICE (emphasis, not yelling), that a more "sterile" analysis of a weapon system can prove useful before putting the system into a combat situation.

In other words, for every game-related choice you make, another player can (and probably will) develop a counter that may or may not be the most effective one at the time, and/or the one you predicted/guessed/counted on. It is as difficult to predict as anything involving human behavior.

With respect to the ASM and fighters, all I can say is this: based on the PRESUMPTION that the fighters can achieve range 5, a squadron now packs enough DF firepower to cripple or destroy your D5, and there is nothing your D5 can do to counter it. Note that this is very different than a squadron of fighters that launches 12 (or even 24) drones at you, with the same general presumption (i.e., the squadron achieves its desired and decisive launching position, whatever that happens to be).

Without indicating whether the system is broken or not (and despite my previous post, I have not, and do not yet intend to, draw a conclusion): Is this a desired/intended effect of this proposed system? Is it too powerful? Is it not powerful enough (no shouting please)? Do you and SVC wish it to be playtested, in the judgement that the "analysis" of the weapon is far enough along that playtesting is now desirable?

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:35 pm: Edit

SPP:

You wrote:

"I honestly can see this (on fighters) as a whole new dynamic, and have (over the course of the discussion) begun to find the effect on carrier operations interesting, both in the "carrier duel" and the "Carrier as fleet adjunct" roles."

Interesting...very interesting!

Are you suggesting that changing the course of carrier/fighter warfare in SFB AWAY from drones (at least in part) and toward a new DF system is a desirable end?

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:37 pm: Edit

Hmmm...I wonder what the reaction amongst all of us would be if this system were developed, but with limited or restricted availability for fighter squadrons? (and perhaps a little looser for the Lyrans...?)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:37 pm: Edit

Andrew Palmer:

Unimpressed. I do not know what drone tactics your fighters have had to face. On my side of the issue, I have broken up attacks by Hydran stingers with drones. Usually launched from ships where I can get use of Multi-warhead modules, and starfish drones.

If you are screaming in at speed 29 using erratic maneuvers, I only need to score four points of damage (assuming the typical 12 damage point fighter) to cripple the fighter and put the heavy weapons out of action.

If you are coming in at speed 14 using erratic maneuvers I need to score eight points of damage (assuming the typical 12 damage point fighter). If I launch a dozen drones, you can start dropping chaff. But you do not know if the drones are all targeted one-to-one or if six of your fighters have two drones targeted on them or what. If you do not kill all the drones, i.e., if four of your fighters blow the chaff roll (the average), then they will have to drop chaff again, and ALL OF THEM WILL BE UNABLE TO FIRE PHASERS (D11.41) OR LAUNCH SEEKING WEAPONS (D11.42) FOR EIGHT IMPULSES, and their EW rating will drop (unless they are carrying EW pods, which would slow them further) to only SIX (two built-in plus four for erratic maneuvers) for eight impulses (D11.432).

So please drop chaff.

If you fire your phasers to kill the first wave of seeking weapons, there will be another right behind it (my fighters can launch two drones (J4.241) if at least one is a type-VI). And guess what, all you can do is drop chaff and/or HET and run. And if the second wave of seeking weapons is taken out by the chaff, [and some of the ship launched drones might be MW (or starfish drones) that will release on random targeting at the appropriate range from when the chaff pack distracted them (D11.32)] then my fighters can close in on your fighters without fear of return fire (blinded by your own chaff and with enough ECCM to shoot straight (your lent ECM is gone for a vulnerable window of time).

Not to mention that having dropped chaff, your fighters are easy fodder for disruptor fire (assuming we have six ECCM up).

And we can toss more drones from the ships (maybe a scatterpack or two) to pull the chaff packs from your chaff pods (if you are carrying chaff pods, but if so, then again your fighters are going just a tad slower).

So forgive me. I find fighters effective in breaking up fighter strikes, ESPECIALLY IF I CAN MAKE THE ENEMY FIGHTERS DROP CHAFF. It buys me an eight impulse window.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Be advised, the comment on "usually launched from ships" deals with the period of time when I do not have any Klingon fighters with "special rails", and does not infer that fighter launched drones are not in use.

Chaff is a double edged sword. It can save the fighter, but it also leaves it vulnerable.

And in the case of ASM fighters, forcing them to drop chaff just as they are reaching range six can be disastrous for them as you can see.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 06:50 pm: Edit

I like the ASM proposal. However my fear(and this may be unfounded) is that it will equalize all the races fighters and replace racial weapons in ship assualts. For example before this rule Federation assualt fighters and klingion assualt fighters had to have different tatics aginst ships because the Feds used Photons and the Klingions used disruptors, however this weapon is more perferable to use in ship battles then either the photon or the disruptor. I'm concerned that this weapon could result in the ultimate cookie cut fighter battles.(your asm vs my asm again) I feel that if you want to introduce new anti-ship weapons you should add the light photon and a new type of disruptor. I also have to ask why this weapon can't be used aginst PFs?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Scott Tenhoff:

Your BPVs are off slightly, in some cases mistakes cancelling out. And I am really unsure at this juncture how you got them so close given that you used the Economic BPV to buy the Federation Carrier, and the Combat BPV to buy the Klingon Carrier (you should have used Combat BPV in both cases since neither is a scout). Part of it has to do with not adding the "plus refit" cost to the Federation NVL's Economic BPV, and part of it has to do with no paying for the drone speed upgrades for the two fighter squadrons (the Fed Fighter Squadron costing about six points more because of the 24 type-VIM drones).

The two groups are actually within four BPV points of each other (advantage to the Klingons) not seven BPV points (advantage to the Klingons).

But the whole thing is fatally flawed in that neither of us has any idea what the BPV cost of the ASM is going to be. If a dozen of them (loading half the fighters) increased the BPV by 12 points or had no effect is not known. You are making an assumption that there is either no cost, or that the cost is no worse than upgrade of a type-I to type-IM.

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

Your paradigm shift is exactly what this will be. It will place an emphasis on carriers that arises from combat utility, rather than economic utility (or, put in other words, the EPV of the fighters).

I think the question to ask is whether we want SFB to shift to be a more fighter oriented game, rather than a starship combat game.

I don't, but others might.

That is indeed a paradigm shift.

By Ryan Peck (Trex) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 08:05 pm: Edit

"If you are screaming in at speed 29 using erratic maneuvers, I only need to score four points of damage (assuming the typical 12 damage point fighter) to cripple the fighter and put the heavy weapons out of action."

Great try doing 4 points thru all that ECM while keeping up enough speed to avoid range 5. It can be done, but you waste tons of firepower and his ships are unmolested.

He can now pick the when, and where he wants to attack. The other option is to try to ignore his ECM and keep up the speed. I am now forced to take crappy shots. When I miss, the fighters move in and leave me bleeding in my prison cell. No thanks to either.

"But the whole thing is fatally flawed in that neither of us has any idea what the BPV cost of the ASM is going to be. If a dozen of them (loading half the fighters) increased the BPV by 12 points or had no effect is not known. You are making an assumption that there is either no cost, or that the cost is no worse than upgrade of a type-I to type-IM."

Unless the x BPV they cost can buy me a weapon the kills fighters real well it wont matter. What can I buy for say 24 points that will even the playing field? BP? T-bombs? Maybe faster drones would help, but I see this like being a battle between late war Kzinti and early war Gorn. Sure the BPV may line up, but the cats will always end up wearing new Alligator boots on shore leave.

I just see this weapon maximising the munchkiness of fighters beyond what they already have. There is almost zero lost, and alot gained.