Trent Telenko:

I think that SVC's Original proposal saying "it could hit a ship, but not a fighter" meant it could hit PFs. By (A3.23) PFs are ships, except when defined specifically as PFs in the sub category of ships. They operate as ship except wherein their own rules specifically differ from the way ships operate.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Sunday, August 18, 2002 - 11:05 pm: Edit

SPP. I will admit that ASMs would make Carrier duels more interesting. However, SFB is not a game of carrier duels and every situation wherein fighters exists is not one with fighters on both sides.

There is a current balance in SFB of units defending against fighters. There are certain percentages of fighters that die before they can hit a certain range. All of the current counters and counter-counters have established this balance. There is, however, nothing that prevents a significant percentage of fighters from reaching Range 5 - i.e. this is not a good number in the equations for the defending force. We can argue specific tactics all day, but these measures balance out to achieve our current level of balance and preventing range 5 is simply not within the current capabilities of units in SFB. Preventing Range 2 is a significant jump, due to ADDs and phasers. Even preventing Range 3 (the single shot mode for fighter fusions) is one which is at a comfortable balance level, based upon the current abilities of defenders. Preventing Range 5 simply isn't.

Beyond that, I don't know what more I could say. Even if I could afford to fly to Amarillo to show you, I doubt if that would be convincing since player rust/skill would be a factor. I guess I'll have to wait until the playtest reports to flow in and let them make my point.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Sunday, August 18, 2002 - 11:10 pm: Edit

SPP,
I appreciate your response to my post. Your point of players (or groups) having the ultimate choice is valid.
In that regard, Though I will, from this point on, implement a wait and see attitude, I will continue to offer my opinion in the most constructive method I can come up with.
And yes, I have done some things that were questionable just to get in one good clean shot, but for the most part, the ship is punished badly when I do that. On the other side of the coin, I've been killed by my own (possibly excessive) conservative tactics (when I'm too obsessed over protecting crew)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, August 18, 2002 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Let's try this version.

Anti-ship missile.

Can be launched by any rail/rack that carries a one-space or larger drone or type-D plasma, including drogues, captors, defsats.

Cannot be used from internal bay type bombers, only from rails. Fighters can only target this in the FA arc.

Hit probability:
Range 1: 1-2
Range 2-3: 1-3
Range 4-5: 1-4
Range 6+: NA

Affected by EW. Can engage fighters but under small target penalty.

Damage (if it hits) is 2d6 points.

Any other questions?

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 12:01 am: Edit

I have one which is based on some of the discussions we had about Lyran fighters:

What problem is the Anti-ship missile trying to solve?

If there isn't a problem, then I assume it is designed to create a new dynamic. What is the dynamic?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 12:09 am: Edit

I don't see a need for this weapon.

At range 5, an F14D could do upwards of 96 points of damage.......... at range 5!!! Starships are going to get obsolete really fast. It will start to look more like Star Wars than SFB.

What's the purpose behind the weapon?

Why do fighters that currently don't tech slosh suddenly carry the same weapon across the galaxy?

Why would anyone ever take simple drones again?

Why would the plasma races ever use anything BUT this ASM?

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 12:14 am: Edit

Any ship with 4 racks (Kzinti FF+, Klingon E4D) armed with ASMs can expect this type of damage if using ASMs with no EW shift.

Range	1	2-3	4-5
Hits (avg)	1	2	3
Damage	7	14	21

This is in addition to the other weapons. It has the potential to significantly increase the range 4-5 alpha strike for many ships. At range 5, a single ASM is as stronger than an overloaded disruptor (assuming average damage) and costs no power. It strongly favors races that fight most effectively in the 4-5 bracket, leaving races that rely on more close range weapons at a serious disadvantage.

I'd really like to suggest that if the ASM is brought into SFB (something that I'm personally opposed to), that it be treated as a limited or restricted availability drone. And they should be expensive, BPV-wise. These things really are powerful.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 12:17 am: Edit

Before inflicting ASMs on the rest of the galaxy...

How about some playtest reports of the Maghadim carrier group in Module E1?

Seriously, this proposal (having had my attention directed to it) seems to be a duplication of the Magellanic mass driver system, and the Maghadim carrier strike force. Our testing here pegged the "price" of an ASM launch capability in a carrier group at 13 BPV per MD that could be launched in a single impulse for the entire group. Even that dramatically alters the dynamic of SFB to the point where the two exterior playtest reports I've got of the Maghadim carrioer group in 2.5 years says they're terrifyingly effective.

Here are the ways a mass driver can be stopped:

1) Phasers
2) ESGs
3) T-bombs
4) EW (in three ways)
5) Leave the hex before the end of the impulse.
6) Scout channels.
7) Tractor beams (added since E1)
8) Same hex seeking weapon impact (added since E1)
9) Cloaking (fade-in and out inclusive) (added since E1)

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 12:40 am: Edit

Ken: This Drone-ASM is rather different than your MD-ASM since it is a pure DF system so all those defenses don't apply.

By Jeff Williams (Jeff) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 12:43 am: Edit

Wow...a whole lot of argument over this issue. Sounds controversial. Must mean we're on to something either really good or really bad.

I think what SPP hasn't communicated effectively is how players are going to be forced to change defensive doctrines against fighters if these come out. Currently I see many players stack escorts in the same hex as the carrier to concentrate firepower against incoming drone swarms. With ASMs, the escorts are going to have to move ahead of the carrier 3-5 hexes to take up a point defense role against incoming strike waves. Yes, this DOES put the escort at a significantly increased risk. But that's his job--to take the bullet meant for the carrier. Sucks to be an escort crew. Of course, your own fighters should be doing something equivalent in retaliation, or putting a rather nasty smackdown on the inbound fighters.

Using standard warships, things haven't changed all that much. Before, drone fighters would stand at range, launch drones, return to carrier for more drones. Shooting down fighters was a long range phaser/disruptor issue. Your primary focus was maintaining point defense while waiting for the fighters' reload cycle to hit. That was your window to try and press home an overload strike against either the carrier or it's escorts.

Now, with no (or fewer) drones coming in on you, your own drones are free to be used offensively on the inbound fighters. The key is TIMING. Your drones should be a significant nuisance for them right as they're coming in to range 7 or 8. Note that it should NOT happen while they're still 15-20 hexes out and have time to deal with them and recover for the strike run. Scatter-packs properly set with good release parameters (size class/range) help out a lot.

With this new timing, the fighters are forced into the dilemna that SPP was trying to illustrate earlier. If they want to use phasers to defend with, then they are almost forced to drop erratics to get drone kills. Even a standard type-1 has a 50/50 chance of surviving a 1-shifted P-3 at range 1. Even without a shift, it's still dicey at 1/3rd. Gets even worse if you sneak some 1-space-of-armor type-IVs in there. A 12(damage)/10(to kill) drone is a GREAT fighter killer. And without labs, the fighters have no idea WHICH drone it is, or who it's targetted on. (Some players prefer MW, starfish, or swordfish drones instead for anti-fighter work. I like armor because it's cheap. Your mileage and tactics may vary.) If they want to use remaining drones to shoot down my drones, then thats fewer ASM missiles they can launch this turn against ME. If they want to use chaff, then they can't launch at all for 8 impulses.

What this means to me as the defender is that these fighters are now exposed to range 8 phaser-fire from my fleet BEFORE they can get off their ASM payload. The ones that launched defensive drones or dropped chaff are ignored for the moment. The ones that are still "hot" and inbound now get CONCENTRATED fleet firepower. Scoff if you will at range 8 phaser-fire, but in quantity, it adds up in a hurry.

This is not to say that the fleet got off scott-free during this run. I'm certain that at least a few fighters will survive to release their munitions at close enough range. But most of the attack is being broken up by concentrated fleet defenses. End result, a handful of dead/crippled fighters, the rest of the strike in various amounts of dissaray, and a moderately chewed up ship on my part.

Now this assumes drone using races on both sides. Other races will have to adopt appropriate counter-tactics. ESGs should block ASMs totally (from the last I heard), Hydrans should have significant stingers to intercept with, etc, etc...

By Jeff Williams (Jeff) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 12:48 am: Edit

SVC, question:

What is the assumed BPV/availability for ASMs as compared to standard drones?

By Stuart C. Brennen (Evlstu) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 01:11 am: Edit

I actually have very little idea what the ASM "controversy" is all about. I will say that I am against anything that will change the nature and flavor of a given race. In other words, if the ASM means that the Lyrans will stop being Lyrans, then I am absolutly 100% against it. If, on the other hand, a given weapon or tactic (not necessarily the ASM) just represents the continuing evolution of a given races "flavor" and character, then thats fine.
Perhaps a solution would be to tone down the ASM somewhat?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 02:00 am: Edit

Purpose of weapon: don't overthink it. It was just an idea that came to me, and apparently similar ideas had come to others at other times.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 06:50 am: Edit

rs: ASM. If this was a R3 weapon, even with EW immunity, it would work. R4 - tough to call (possibly allows for an impulse of R5 PH-1 fire). The R5 ability is far more of an unbalancing factor than the EW immunity.

Also, after seeing it mentioned, I am very concerned about the ESG immunity. If this remains in place, this will give the Lyrans a large advantage with this system in place (even with ESGs able to absorb some ASM damage, ala HB, even if balanced by autohits).

Jeff Williams. I play Hydrans so I'm used to all of the anti-fighter tactics that you mentioned. I can still get over 80% of my fighter force to range 5. Granted, I've got more fighters as a Hydran, but even 50% of a squadron making it to R5 is leaps and bounds more devastating that anything currently out there.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 09:24 am: Edit

Richard: I think that was Ken's point. the MD-ASM has all of these ways to stop it, but it is still "game-breaking". This ASM doesn't have all of those ways, so how can in NOT be game breaking.

SVC: The biggest question I still have on the ASM is what is it YIS? I would naturally assume it would be concurrent with ADDs, as that is what it is based on. But then, my "naturally" can easily be someone else's "abominable".

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 09:59 am: Edit

I didn't think ADDs were immune to ESGs, but then I didn't look it up.

Concurrent with ADDs works.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 10:08 am: Edit

personally I believe fighters should have some teeth. as it is fighters are more of a nuisence in paperwork and use. fighters don't have much bite and get smoked easily on the way in to the target. I know there is plenty who would believe otherwise and it may be of personal opinion on fighter use. any enguagement has always ment there was losses from one strike run, as fighters are rather vulnerable. if a weapon gives it a little bite and allows a fighter to perform a mission with a chance of return to carrier improving I am all for it, but 2d6 is too chaotic for a damage potential and regular drones would be of more use.

justa few ramblings........

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 10:21 am: Edit

on other things I noticed, and yes a little late but isp and lost passwords prevented getting it in when it was going.

HARM = like, use ems from targets for guidence systems. problem is rules for target selection when two viable targets to choose from (or more), say two in 60 deg. seeker head veiw friendly or otherwise? target select when two ships in veiw but at diff ranges?

common sense would answer normally, but then there is hard heads too.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 10:25 am: Edit

of pods and toys to play with the enemy, may be an auto reject but um..for the f-111 or maybe somethings I haven't seen in J2 yet.

Photon torp regen every two turns with a range limit of 8 does only say 2 points dmg? uses all target mods as if fired from a ship.

By Robert Herneson (Rherneson) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 10:35 am: Edit

Steve, ASM point value & availability & Year in Service?

R

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 10:36 am: Edit

fighters reloading their own photons while in flight is definitely auto-reject.

RH: I already answered year and await playtest reports to assign points.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 10:37 am: Edit

on drone jumping, the only race I see is in omega that uses a transportor system for movement. that would be kind of neat by it's natural movement system it could against a galatic encounter event (not likely) naturally have a chance for slip through an esg barrier.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 10:40 am: Edit

drone jumping: no way.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 11:09 am: Edit

photon or other heavy weapon for maybe a ftr/bmr or some such. wasn't meant a something that went to carrier based craft. goes to the idea from the proposal I sent in from fiddling and looking at those 8th airforce. with what I sent in you may see what I were thinking.

the drone jump was discouragement from the concept, not encouragement.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 11:50 am: Edit

Searched this entire topic and could not find a YIS date for the ASM. If somebody out there knows what it is, please let me know. I'd love to do a playtest, but I can't if I don't know the date.