---

Quote:

MJC:
• It costs no power to arm but is far more successful at inflicting it's damage than a Type I drone.
REPLY: You mis-spelled it's, which is the contractual form rather than the possessive form.

---

---

Quote:

• It can't damage fighters. Dust clouds can damage fighters but these things can't. And it can't damage drones.
REPLY: Dust clouds are very big. This is one thing that is hard to aim. You don't have to aim dust clouds.

---

---

Quote:

• As an ADD it still suffers from the complete nuetralisation of its damage by any ESG it might fire through, with-outany degradation of the ESG feild.
REPLY: Nature of the beast.

---

---

Quote:

• It'll be used by every drone using race ( and plasma apparently ) as the only weapon of choice.
REPLY: Not really true as the variable damage makes it a crapshoot..

---

---

Quote:

• I think you're pulling someone's leg with this ( having invented the Super-ADD ) unt I think said leg might be mine.
REPLY: You're so vain, I bet you think this conversation is about you.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 08:36 pm: Edit

New Weapon.
The Disruption generator.

Preamble
The Lyrans wanted to develop a weapon that would allow their fighters to strike at longer ranges but without the absobitant power requirements of the Disruptor.
By combining some of the research of the ESG with the research of the disruptor, they managed to develop a weapon that; unlike a disruptor which sends a super-luminal package of micro-waves at the target, would instead send a super-luminal package of sub-quanta particals.

The weapon fires through a regular FA arc when mounted on fighters. It could be mounted on ships and was mounted on PFs ( in any arc a diruptor could use ).

Arming
The Weapon can be charged in three modes but will fire once in that mode before requiring to be recharged. The modes are; Light, Standard and Heavy.
Light requires 0.5 points of power to charge, Standard requires 1 point of power to charge and Heavy requires 2 points of power to charge. The power may come from any source.

Striking
The weapon shall use the following "to hit" table and inflict damage to the target based on the base damage listed in the table and the type of target attacked.

Size class 6 targets or smaller shall take double the base damage.
Size class 5 shall take the base damage.
Size class 4 or larger targets shall take half the base damage.

Any fractional points of damage are rounded down.

Range	0-1	2	3-4	5-8	9-10
To Hit	1-5	1-4	1-3	1-2	1
Light Base Damage	2	2	2	1	0
Standard Base Damage	4	4	4	3	3
Heavy Base Damage	6	6	6	4	0

History
Since the original core technolgy was based on the ESG to develop the sub-quanta partical aspect, this Lyran indiginous weapon was never copied by other races.

The Lyrans developed a their own fighter around the this weapon.


I think the Problem with an ALL NEW, ANY FIGHTER, ALL RACES weapon is that any problem it can solve will be the creatioin of a new problem.

By Jeff Williams (Jeff) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 12:40 am: Edit

I've been listening to the entire discussion of the ASM with quite some interest. At first blush, the weapon seems broken on arrival. Upon further review, I'm beginning to think that there might be some merit to this. The real question we need to ask here is: How much will these things cost, and how available will they be??

If we are going to make them totally interchangeable with type-IF drones at 1 BPV (upgrade cost) and general availability, then yes, I do think they're broken. At the very least, we should compare them to swordfish drones, their closest cousins. Swordfish drones are at least vulnerable for an impulse or so after launch before they can fire, even if they often engage outside effective PD range. Also they have a much shorter range with much higher damage output than the ASM. The downside is that the fighter itself must come into relatively close contact with the target, instead of standing off at range and launching. Using this as a baseline, I would think the ASM should cost about 1-3 BPV higher than a swordfish, with similar availability. Playtest may result in different point values and availablity.

As far as ship-board use, I could easily accept that because of their "line-up-and-fire" issue, that they would not be able to be fired from ship/PF drone racks that use a "tumble-launch" delivery system. It would also explain why they were not in widespread usage among standard warships.

As for scatter-pack usage, seeing as how they are "really big anti-drones", then they should use starfish-launched anti-drone rules when firing from a scatterpack. First round goes after primary target, all other must be randomly targeted on others. Rounds without targets go screaming off into the cosmos in a random direction. Possibly restrict them to the FA of the shuttle when fired.

Yes, this could mean a shift in how fighters are operated and defended against. But with proper checks and balances, this system can be made to work. It just needs to be adjusted to the appropriate power level.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 12:59 am: Edit

---

Quote:

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.

---

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 01:45 am: Edit

To be brutally honest, I really hate the ASM idea. I agree with most of the negative comments made thus far, and I would prefer to keep SFB a game of SHIPS not FIGHTERS. We have yet to really digest the full implications of the stuff in J2, and we are talking about MORE improvements. Also if the ASM is a "big ADD", and we are talking about not only putting it to use with drone using races but also with plasma races (replacing Pl-D, including plasma racks if I read the early posts correctly), isn't this the ultimate tech slosh? If that's the case, why cant plasma races just use ADDs (and ADD racks) and if that's the case, why can't they use Type-VI drones? And on, and on, and on....

Just my two cents.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 01:48 am: Edit

Well, that's part of the reason why I would like to see a "Fighter" SSJ-- I like SFB as is...but the possiblity of having two Fed Fighters screaming past the BB they just gutted does warm my heart...

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 02:40 am: Edit

Would it be possible to alter the ASM into a weapon similar to Hyperdrones: hitting on the following impulse, doing about 4 points of damage per warhead space, but still possible to shoot down?

Having drone fighters both have all the range combat virtues inherent in drones plus gain a DF capability equivalent (frequently better) to the current dedicated DF fighter designs just seems slightly excessive.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 08:26 am: Edit

Hmmm. Lets see - Megafighter Drone fighters with ASMs. Speed 28 with 6 ECM (2 ECM pods on pod rails). Gain 2 ECM at Range 10 for small target modifier. Oh yeah, I can see an equivilant BPV of ships having a chance against these... not.

Sorry, SPP, but our experiences with Fighters are so different its almost as if we've been playing different games. The fact that you find drones to be the end/all be/all anti-fighter weapon to me is just strange and a completely different experience than I have had in my almost 20 years of SFB play. Perhaps its just the different tactics our opponents have used??

The fact is that the ASM is far more effective as a DF fighter weapon that the fusion beam, which is already respected for its use. The fact that ASMs can fire at range 5, do photon damage when they hit and ignore ECM is a huge paradigm shift in the game. Hydran fighters will no longer be the feared DF fighters. A St-2 can only do in the low 30s at optimum firing range, an F-14D can carry 8 ASMs, and will average the low 40s at optimum firing range. However, there is a far cry from getting to range 0 alive and getting to range 5 alive for fighters. Range 5 is where ST-2 fighters start to die and ECM has a significant effecton their shots once they get there. Against those F14Ds, you have to somehow find a way to kill them before they hit a range when your Ph-1s can guarentee even a single point of damage (assuming equal ECM). Who needs PFs? Who needs DNs? You can create ATTRITION UNITS, risking only a single life, and have more firepower than a FF.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Andrew Palmer:

Frankly, what I see is your constant changing of the situation when an answer is presented. You did not in any way counter what I said, you just changed the situation again and said "woe is me".

Your squadron of mega-F-14Ds is (including a Mega EWF) is costing you 408 BPV (assuming the cost of just type-IF drones). Where you are getting your damage estimate, I do not know as the F-14s, even the -D model, can only launch two drones a turn (exception, they can kick out up to four type-III drones from the special rails, but ASMs are not type-III drones, so the drone launch rate is just two drones a turn, and thus just two ASMs a turn). At five hexes range that puts their damage on average at only 15.33 points, and that assuming both ASMs hit and rolled average (7 points of damage each). A Mega-F-14D cannot get into the "low 40s" at five hexes range in a single turn. The most it can get is 28 points in a single turn from five hexes range, that is assuming max damage on both ASMs and nothing but ones and twos on the phaser-G. Even if the fighter closed into range zero, the damage still does not reach "the low 40s" if you combined the phaser-G doing 16 points of damage with two ASMs maxing out at 24 points from range five, you just exacltly hit 40.

We apparently are playing two different games. You are apparently not launching drones under the existing rules. Even RALADS do not fire any faster than drones (J12.23), i.e., an F-14D can only fire two RALADS in a given turn [it can only launch two drones unless it is launching type-III drones from its special rails (R2.F1)].

The previous tactics you have espoused played into my standard defense doctrine. Fighters using erratic maneuvers are not guaranteed to kill a drone with their phaser-3s because they are working against a shift of one when they fire at the drone (due to their own EM) which gives a type-I a 50% chance of surviving. And if they drop chaff . . . well that breaks up the attack quite nicely. It is the primary goal I am aiming for to break up the attack. Maybe the term "breaking up" an attack has a different meaning. Maybe to you it means "I destroy all the enemy fighters and they do no damage to my ships". To me it means "I significantly degrade the enemy attack such that the damage they score is significantly degraded."

But I am SERIOUSLY wondering what fighter rules you have been playing under as you seem to have no understanding on the limits of a drone-fighter's drone launching rate.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Scott Tenhoff:

I think your carrier group duel situation would be interesting whether ASMs were used or not.

I think you mis-read the fighter chart, and the F-18s are not speed 15, but speed 13 (still a point faster than the Z-Vs, but not three points faster), the F-18B is speed 15, but does not show up until Y177 (you set this in Y173). The Klingon ships are more maneuverable, and have better firing arcs. But both sides are hampered by "breakdown" ships (the Klingon F5E has a chance of a breakdown on its first HET as do Fed NVL and NEC).

Even if the Federation fighters were not carrying ASMs, and despite the slight edge in BPV, I would rate the Federation as having the stronger position, and on a closed map he best chance of winning outright. On an open map, with room to maneuver, the Klingons might be able to win, but the phaser-Gs (six of them total) give the Federation a devastating pointblank firepower edge on top of their 11 phaser-1s. The four disruptors, four phaser-1s, 11 phaser-2s, and eight phaser-3s cannot compete in a close a fight. Plus the Feds have a slightly better drone throw weight (9 drone racks to 8), and more depth to their drone stores [200 spaces on their carrier, plus up to another 100 in the NEC's cargo boxes (R2.R5), of course a lot of both is going to be taken up with type-VI drones, compared to 150 spaces on the D5V].

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 05:37 pm: Edit

SPP. Yes, you are correct, the F14D situation is not a valid one. That was just my frustration at leading to me creating situations without real thought.

Let's take Z-YBs. Two ASMs and two type VI drones. Make them Megafighters, as opposed to using WBPs. They close with 6 ECM (2 pods as before) at speed 27. They use their type VI drones against any drones (Kzinti/Fed) or fighters (Hydrans) sent after them. Both the Feds and Hydrans will have trouble killing many before they get to range 5; the Kzintis will do slighly better (due to DISR) but still, a significant number will get to range 5. The damage they will cause will be disproportional to the current state of affairs with fighters damaging ships. Even Hydran ST-2 fighters, unless they go for a Range 10 alpha, have trouble doing real damage, since at range 3-5, their damage does not increase much, but they are entering prime phaser and ADD damage brackets. This is, however, fine in the current "metagame" because the enemy is forced to use much of the primary anti-ship firepower on the fighters while the ships close for the kill. Against the ASM armed fighters, however, no one is capable of enough damage to prevent that Range 5 strike and, once there, ECM will not save you.

If this situation does not help explain it, I don't know what else I can do. You're just going to have to trust me, and the other players who have posted here stating that these are too powerful and are gamebreaking/changing.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 06:13 pm: Edit

Andrew Palmer:

When, precisely, have I ever said this would not change the game?

I really want to know.

I have said it would change the game. I have been discussing this since it came up on August 15. I can review every message I have posted since then, and most of them are doing my job, i.e., looking at the "technical aspects" of the rule and discussing with the players how the rule probably will work should it come to pass.

My comments have included a flat statement that ship mounted ones give me the willies.

The one most to do with whether or not the game would remain the same was;

"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."

And that one clearly noted that it would be "a whole new dynamic".

So you are not "explaining" something to me that I can see. You are taking one side of a debate and imagining a "side A has a carrier, side B does not, side B is dead, therefore this is a bad thing, period" situation from what I can see.

And you seem enamored of situations that have just one side.

Look at your Z-YBs. Assume that they are using their type-VIs for drone defense. You do realize that every Z-YB that launches a type-VI for drone defense is not NOT going to launch an ASM this turn, right? So let me assume that I flood the zone with drones (maybe launched by my own fighters). You counter with your type-VIs. I then have a turn to kill fighters.

Is it your contention that your fighters will always be in position to launch their counter drones on Turn #1 so that they can close to range 5 on Turn #2?

I do NOT have to kill your Z-Ys (or your F-14s, or what have you) to break up a fighter strike. All I need to do is keep them outside range five, or only let them enter range 5 when they have taken some action that negates their weapons. Launching counter-drones, dropping chaff, these are sufficient.

I am more than willing to listen to you, and anyone else on this board. I fully understand that you have used fighters, but all of your missives to date seem to indicate that your use of them has been flawed. This one, for example, seems to be using up your ability to fire your ASMs by expending your drone launch rate in launching counter-drones. You have to retain the drone launch rate as you close so that you can launch the ASMs. The defense needs to get the attacking fighters to expend their drone launch rate, or to drop chaff, so that they can fire at the ASM fighters at short ranges where they are most vulnerable. Preferably under conditions that let the ships get in two shots (firing disruptors on Impulse #25 at less than 10 hexes range, then getting the ASM fighters to drop chaff in response to the wave of approaching drones on Impulse #26, so that you can hit them with direct-fire again at an even closer range on Impulse #1 of the following turn while they still cannot fire or launch because they dropped chaff, for example . . . although that may be hard to do).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 06:57 pm: Edit

MJC: by the time of the next eclipse, you can walk to Nova Scotia.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 08:16 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Would it be possible to alter the ASM into a weapon similar to Hyperdrones: hitting on the following impulse, doing about 4 points of damage per warhead space, but still possible to shoot down?

---

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 08:58 pm: Edit

SPP. It is not that difficult for speed 27 units with movement preference to have sufficient control of the initiative to target key action points over the turn break. i.e. fire the drones then, 8-32 impulses later fire the ASMs. This is not a difficult thing to set up; so much so, that I didn't feel the need to mention what was to me, obvious.

And yes, I am focusing on fighters vs ships. In most cases, you will not have your own fighters to counter your opponents. That is just the nature of both a campaign and a pick-up game; different players have different preferences combined with you can't have all your good stuff where you need it all of the time.

To use a really basic example, what is the average Fed ship squadron going to do against these Z-YBs? They don't have sufficient drones to have a significant impact; photons stink against fighters, and their ph-1s aren't effective enough outside R5. They will just die.

You also seem to be enamored of large drone wave. Sorry, but IME, large drone waves are just not that effective. There are so many low-effort ways to counter them, most people I know don't even use them anymore - they use smaller, targetted drone waves to help set up a better DF solution (force a slip so that fire hits a different shield, etc.) and use them in the knife fight. With the ASM, we will cease to see anything BUT these carried on drone fighters.

ASMs additionally make most Carrier Escorts useless. Of the "escort weapons" only the D-torps are effective to range 5 and even these have to be timed perfectly or they won't have enough stopping power. ADDs don't help against ASM armed fighters, nor do Ph-Gs. You've just made a whole class of ships obsolete.

My apologies if my frustration is coming out in my posts; it is not personnal, I have just seen one item recently go into production and this one being discussed that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt are broken.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 09:23 pm: Edit

SSP
I don't believe the game as a whole needs to experience a change.
You said "I have said it would change the game."
It is really necessary to do so?
Maybe I'm biased. I don't like playing with fighters or playing against them. But I do so occasionally. I find fighters a little annoying for a variety of reasons I won't dwell upon right now. I love the starship activity though and I deal with fighters whenever I have to.
J2 brought about some very significant (and daunghting) changes to fighters already. The mega-fighters and bombers (please take no offense) I felt was a result of imaginations gone dry. It happens occasionally with anyone and I just left it as that. But with these proposed additions in J3, it really appears that the scope of the game is taking away focus of ships, races, etc to attrition units. It almost seems more star Wars than Star Trek. To qualify that last sentence, let me explain.
When I play SFB, I do all that I can to keep my ship intact, avoid errors that would cause my ship damage and loss of crew. Internal damage kills my crew and (exposing my occasional enjoyment of roleplaying) I feel it as a loss.
The introduction (and growth) of fighters has brought about the total expectation of loss of life (ignoring safe pilot ejections for the moment) and resources. (attrition units)
With J2 and what little is being discussed about J3, the focus of disposable units is coming to the forefront, and that is what Star Wars is. This is not Star Trek.
I'm not ignoring all the other products ADB has dished out, but the focus of fighters (and their lethality) is almost making them the ships of choice.
Again, I'm sure my bias is showing.
In short, this game doesn't need this type of change. Of course, I'm in no position to dictate how you develop the game nor do I expect my feeble words to sway you away from the direction you're apparently heading towards. However, for the first time (since X2), I'm not feeling encouraged at all towards the direction this game is heading.
Different strokes, I suppose.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Hrm, it would make carriers and fighters be more of the crucial thing they are in F&E. I'm not sure if this is the way to accomplish that though.

Glenn> Bombers are pretty much a non-factor, being planetary defense units. They won't matter for open sapce duels or dquadron actions (what people mostly play). Megafighters are a def improvement, but come into play late to mid war and do make fighters notably more expensive.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Sunday, August 18, 2002 - 12:25 am: Edit

SPP wrote:

---

Quote:

Look at your Z-YBs. Assume that they are using their type-VIs for drone defense. You do realize that every Z-YB that launches a type-VI for drone defense is not NOT going to launch an ASM this turn, right? So let me assume that I flood the zone with drones (maybe launched by my own fighters). You counter with your type-VIs. I then have a turn to kill fighters.

---

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Sunday, August 18, 2002 - 01:19 pm: Edit

A couple of points:

The F111 has a drone fire rate of _four drones_ a turn or it can use the F14 Type-III drone fire rates.

The F111 also has a Ph-G and a ADD-6 for anti-drone work on the way in and can load EW or chaff pods in the bays.

ASMs turn F111, and the A20 with it's pair of photons and ADD-6, into the most powerful direct fire assault fighters in the game.

They make the Federation decision to skip PFs _very_ reasonable.

The question I want to know is whether the ASM can engage PFs. I have either missed it or haven't seen addressed.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Sunday, August 18, 2002 - 04:02 pm: Edit

If ASMs' are added maybe a defense system like CIWS would be the ship based response.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Sunday, August 18, 2002 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Wait till federation bombers get a hold of these things, Imagine a B2 squad with these things it would make it a lot harder to attack a planet!!
I really worry that these will make your ASMs vs my ASMs again. Perhaps ASMs should be less powerful and made to only damage pfs? In this fashion there only a small step up from the ADD. If you want to improve anti-ship weapons why not add a 15 point plasma, a new disruptor, and add light photons? If ASMs go in as presented they should at least be able to targe PFs.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, August 18, 2002 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Jim Davies:

Uhm, a few clarifications.

1.) Your comment about ADDs:

"Its parent ADD is unable to hit anything else."

is in error. ADDs can hit ANYTHING, the problem is that they cannot DAMAGE ANYTHING larger than a fighter. The hulls of "ships", including PFs, are too tough for an ADD to have any effect. That is why ADDs WILL do a point of damage if fired inside the bay (where they are not hitting the hull) (G7.814). Do not mistake the ability to hit with the ability to damage. They are two different things. A rifle can put holes in the side of an aircraft, but would do nothing but scratch the paint if fired at an M1 Abrams.

2.) You are not following the argument as ASM is not a "Lyran invention". It has nothing to do with the Lyran discussion, but is an idea proposed on its own merits by SVC (yes, I know you changed your tune a little further down in your message).

Andrew Palmer:

Andrew Palmer Said: "And yes, I am focusing on fighters versus ships. In most cases, you will not have your own fighters to counter your opponents."

I cannot take that argument seriously. In a campaign if your carrier is someplace, it is not someplace else, and my carrier has to be someplace. Your are aruing balance here, and it does not wash.

Your argument is essence "in a campaign if player A brings his carrier group to battle X, player B will lose both battle X and battle Y because he will not be able to bring a carrier to either battle."

Andrew Palmer Said: "It is not that difficult for speed 27 units with movement preference to have sufficient control of the initiative to target key action points over the turn break. i.e. fire the drones then, 8-32 impulses later fire the ASMs. This is not a difficult thing to set up; so much so, that I did not feel the need to mention what was to me, obvious."

You persist in the argument that there you will always have the initiative. I remain dumbfounded in part because in order to use the initiative you have a very small window. Your fighters have to close to range five. HAVE TO, in order to use their weapon. Why is it so hard for you to see that in knowing that I only have to defend the space from range five to less? How are you going to launch your counterdrones if the circumstances in which you will need to do so are when you have closed to range 10? If you launch the counter drones while continuing to close, you do not get to fire your ASMs. If you drop chaff, you do not get to fire your ASMs. If you continue to close after launching your counterdrones, I get to maul your fighters at less than five hexes range while their weapons are cycling.

Can you at least TRY to defend against the strike? You are not. You are simply granting your strike invulnerability against an active defense. You are making absolutely zero effort to exploit the weaknesses of the system. You are refusing to adjust your doctrine to a new system, but insisting that your doctrine must remain sacrosanct and therefore nothing new must be added to the game. If this weapon system were added to fighters, such that the fighter doctrine changes from launching clouds of drones to running in for close range ASM strikes, does that not mean that the defense has to adjust? Does that not mean that drone clouds are a response to break up the fighter strike? Does that not mean that a Federation group would be better served by bringing counter fighters than relying on their limited drone launch capability?

In essence, you are saying "The game must be played in the way that I have become comfortable with, any change is by definition bad because I will be forced to develop new tactics."

Adding this would NOT change very future scenario of SFB into ASM fighters versus ships. It would make carrier groups some what more flexible and dangerous and in essence somewhat more interesting to play.

The above does not mean that this is going to be added. It is being discussed. The final decision will be SVC's on whether it even goes to playtesting. And at this point, it has NOT been playtested. Everything here is "mental exercises" on everyone's part (including me).

Andrew Palmer said: "ASMs additionally make most Carrier Escorts useless. Of the "escort weapons" only the D-torps are effective to range five and even these have to be timed perfectly or they won't have enough stopping power."

Exactly how many ASM armed fighters are going to fly past an escort to attack the carrier? Doing so would subject them to destruction. They can attack the escort, but if they do, are not they supposedly being chopped up by the carrier's fighters? And do not a lot of escorts mount type-G drone racks so that they can throw drones? Are they not using the ADDs to stop drones targeted on fighters landing on the carrier so that the fighter's landing does not retarget the drone to the carrier?

Andrew, I am sorry, but you are not being convincing. You keep insisting on viewing this as "Side A has ASMs, Side B will take no proactive steps against Side A, therefore Side A will slaughter Side B."

And, Andrew, I have taken nothing you have said as personal. We are both of us suffering frustration. I have, as I noted, said that this would change an aspect of the game. I am not aware of how many players never play with fighters because they prefer ship battles only. Or how many never play with fighters because they find them unworkable outside of niche areas. Or how many never play with fighters simply because they cannot stand all the record keeping involved. Were we to add this to the game, how many people are there who would play with carrier groups now and then because of this new system? How many would continue to only play duels? I do not know. How many people are there who include an SFG in every Klingon fleet? How many are there who only play Tholians if they can have virtually the entire 312th with them? How many only play Romulans if they can use hidden cloaking? How many are there who are frustrated with the Gorns because the Gorns do not have a "thing" unique to them? How many play with Fed PFs?

If ASMs were added to game, would actual carrier group battles become more interesting? Easier to play because the load of record keeping and pushing drone counters would be significantly reduced? Give a better feel for the dangers of "real" torpedo bombers (or dive bombers if you prefer) in that once the fighter releases the munition it will hit or not?

I do not know the answers to any of the above. I am not, at this time, willing to simply reject what SVC has proposed without playtesting because I can, from my own perspective, see pluses. Rightly or wrongly. Mental exercises are not enough to convince me flatly that this a bad thing, or a good thing for that matter.

And, as to things going to press "broken", because you disagree with the designer, that does not make something broken. Tony Medici vehemently disagreed with the fixes to the Andromedan, announcing that the Andromedan would "never" win the Captain's tournament after the changes made in 1990. He was wrong. Maybe you are too.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, August 18, 2002 - 07:46 pm: Edit

Glenn Hoepfner:

Your comments are noted, and I think my response to Andrew Palmer above somewhat covered the ground.

SFB is to a large extent a game of choices. Nothing forces a given playing group to only do ship duels, nothing forces them to only play squadron or fleet battles. Nothing forces them to use or not use PFs and/or interceptors. Nothing forces them to run Hydrans against Andromedans on a given day. It is all a matter of choices. The last large group I was in only did a few fleet battles. Mostly they preferred points battles (usually single ships) and odd more or less free-for-all fights (a battle involving five battle tugs in a fight to the death . . . each player running just his one battle tug). I have seen more than one free for all with every player commanding a dreadnought (and if I had still been with that group, probably would have seen that done with battleships).

Adding ASMs might make the carrier group "duel" more interesting. It might cause some to outlaw carriers (or maybe just ASMs) in their group.

As to casualties, when I played a lot and was just a player, graduating to playtester and then lowly staff officer, my playing style was always influenced by me desire to bring all my ships home. I never allowed avoidance of casualties to influence me away from decisive maneuvers (including a notable quote from one Klingon Commander "I cannot believe you are doing this, I cannot believe you are doing this" when I executed a high energy turn to face my down #1 shield to his ship so that I could unload four photon torpedoes at range one into him, I won the battle, I took losses, but, the Federation still had a cruiser, and the Klingon Empire was missing a battlecruiser and its full crew complement).

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Sunday, August 18, 2002 - 07:54 pm: Edit

I'll withhold an opinion on the ASM until some the playtest rules are drafted and some reports have come in....

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, August 18, 2002 - 08:00 pm: Edit

David Kass:

In simple terms my statement meant that for each type-VI that the Z-Ys launched one ASM would not be launched that turn. Thus if I flooded the zone with drones and he launched type-VIs to counter them, every type-VI launched reduces his ASM strike by one for that turn (actually, assuming a Z-YE, it could launch two counter drones with no reduction in ASM launch by the squadron). If 18 type-VIs are launched in the counter drone role, then only three of his fighters will launch ASMs, admittedly six of them, but that is a markedly different tally than 22 (again assuming an EWF). And since I can track which of his fighters launch type-VIs in the counter drone role, I can concentrate on killing the three that did not, and if I can close the range (assuming the whole squadron kept closing as their drone launch rate declined) I can kill a lot of them with weapons fire, even ADDs (if I can close the range enough) before the next turn.

On a flat field, assuming no action by the defender, you can create an awful ASM strike. I have not tried to say anywhere that this is not so. My problem has always been with the assumption that the ASM strike is unstoppable. That nothing can be done. No defense is possible. I have demonstrated, at least to me, that the existing rules allow defenses, they simply are not based solely on the pre-existing defense paradigm, just as the attack is not the same as the pre-ASM paradigm. Previously, if the fighters launched drones they could do so outside any effective response. In closing to launch ASMs, the launching of drones in self-defense actually hinders their attack. The need to be in a particular window and able to utilize their ASMs hinders the use of chaff and makes them vulnerable.

As to whether or not the launching of drones prevents the launching of ASMs, the rules I have cited in previous missives are to me plain enough that they do. The rules for RALADs say that firing one of them counts against the drone launch rate (J12.23). So I have to assume an ASM would count too, and if you launch a drone, then you cannot launch an ASM in that slot, and if you launch a second drone, then you cannot launch any ASMs that turn.