Archive through August 19, 2002
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development: Module J3: Back in the Cockpit: Archive through August 19, 2002
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 12:05 pm: Edit

I said it before; same as ADD.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 12:13 pm: Edit

Now I see it...I'm blind...I didn't read Mike's post prior to yours carefully enough. Sorry 'bout that.

First ADDs appeared in the Y130's if I remember correctly. Any thoughts on availability? General, Restricted, Limited? Or would it change over time?

ADDs cannot be fired through ESGs and the do not damage the field (E5.32). Would an ASM work the same way? Or would it damage the ESG as it would any other target? Or would the intereaction work some other way?

I really don't mean to be a pest.

By Ryan Peck (Trex) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 12:59 pm: Edit

SVC,

Are there any other rules (then what has been put up here) to playtest in regards to the ASM? I would like to give them a test drive next tuesday night.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 01:00 pm: Edit

If the ASM becomes a weapon too dangerous it could be somewhat off set by this: Say that the ASM is fast enough to be considered DF but still slower than typical DF and ADDs therefore volurable to Aegis. i.e. allow one round of Aegis defence against it. Give it two damage points.

That's IF it is too powerful AND becomes a game weapon.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 01:22 pm: Edit

Availability: Whatever playtesting says, but remember that there are no "availability" rules for the plasma side, so if there is some limit it would have to be part of commander's options.

ASMs would work like ADDs regarding ESGs unless playtesting says something else.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Ok, Petrick (as I was taking him to the airport) said that the ASM should not be able to target fighters, so let's go with that. He says it creates a neat dynamic if they cannot shoot ASMs at fighters. As for an exlanation, it's too hard to aim. Or whatever.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 03:41 pm: Edit

What's the current thought on BPV for this thing?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 03:59 pm: Edit

I haven't even thought about it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 04:02 pm: Edit

Start with a type-I drone (1 point, adjusted for fast speed 2 points). Figure that the non-interception is offset by the probability of a hit and the variable damage, so you're at 2 points each pending any adjustment for the advantage of non-intercept over the disadvantage of reduced warhead yield and no shooting at fighters or drones. Call it 2, or 2.5 maybe?

By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 04:07 pm: Edit

It isn't hard to explain why ASMs don't damage fighters. Consider that ADDs autokill drones but only do 1-6 damage to fighters. That's because fighters are harder targets to hit than drones, due to their agility making it possible to dodge the incoming ADD. ASMs are larger, less agile ADDs, so fighters have a relatively easy time dodging them.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 04:47 pm: Edit

Same intro date as the ADD? Whilst I might not take these over type-IF drones, I'd grab them instantly over slow drones.

Which begs the question: why didn't the Kzintis, who deployed casual fighters from Y161 to Y164 (emulating the Hydrans), use these?

The stated reason was that they needed AAS fighters with drone control, and the AS (which couldn't control its own drones) wasn't compatible with this. However, I can see the Kzintis leaping on ASM-armed AS fighters with claws out. It would have changed history big time. I can well imagine them not bothering with the AAS at all until I-M drones appeared.

Casual fighters lobbing single drones are a non-event. Casual DF fighters aren't.

This might be a little different on the Lyran border because the ASM can't get through an ESG whereas a drone can at least dent it.

If these things are General Availability, no Kzinti is going to fire anything else at a Klink until the I-M appears. Which makes me wonder what those ADDs on the D5 are for?

The only good reason for developing these things is for the Feds to whop PFs. Players of late-war Fed battles will love them because they clear those 100-drone F14D launches from the map.

If (if) this thing did 1d6 to a ship and 2d6 to a PF, and it appeared in Y178, I'd be OK with it. +2 BPV is OK for that.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 05:12 pm: Edit

Oh, wait, Petrick changed the date on the ADD to much later and decided that the Y130 version is a type-VI slow drone. I do not know the new date Petrick picked but its probably Y175 or thereabouts.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Jim, regarding Slow drones and ASM

Why would the Kzinti's be using these?

A slow drone goes speed 8, and lasts 3 turns, and can be targetted ?? (can't remember). The AS goes speed 8 and has to reach range 5 to shoot.

How is a Klingon NOT going to be able to evade some AS's with 2ASM each on a floating map?

Why not have ADD's on a D5? What about BC's with 4 Drone racks, or a DF in combat with 6 drone racks. There are lots of Kzinti ships that have tones of drone racks.

True, the worst situation, is going to be a Kzinti CV getting close, and dumping fighters at range 5 to see how many live to shoot ASMs. But isn't that the case with a Hydran Ranger carrying in his fighters and dumping them in 1 impulse?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 06:20 pm: Edit

Quote:

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?



1) As an ADD like weapon, does the ASM auto-kill drones?

2) Can the ASM be launched from a G-rack?

2.1) If so at what rate of Fire ( one per impulse or 1 per turn )?

2B) Can the ASM be launched from an A-rack?

3) Some races only have Ph-2s ( Hydrans and Klingons ) whilst most have Ph-1s, what are you going to do about that fact that Ph-2s can't effectively engage with the fighters before the fighter release their ASM but that Ph-1s do have the ability "to me too fire" the fighters before the weapons are lost?

4) Why does everybody but the Hydrans get this Energy Free weapon that far outclasses fussion beams? Will the Hyrans CVs and AxCVs get Power Refits?

5) If a 1 point ESG can stop an ASM, is your intention to make the ASM a Lyran weapon through the fact that every race that has the chance of opposing a Lyran WARSHIP FLEET, will simply not carry the ASM as they are useless?

6) How does the R5 ASM counter the fact that Hyran R8 Sniping, can destroy a Lyran Squadron "on the double"?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 06:29 pm: Edit

About the ASM shoots Fighters: "Yes or No" question.


What if the +3ECM penalty that Heavy Weapons ( Photons and Disruptors ) get to fire on drones was applied to the ASM's fire on fighters ( and drones )?

Would that create a solution to the "ADDs should hurt fighters" Vs "Fighter users should have to choose between having a weapon that can kill ships but being unable get past the fighters OR having the weapons that can let them get past the fighters but can't hurt ships" debate?


7) Are you sure that all the "Fighters Follow their ships into battle tactics" should be thrown out the window?

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 06:34 pm: Edit

MJC,
I think the answers go as follows:
1) Can't target anything smaller than a PF.
2) Can't be fired from a rack as its not a rail (at least I hope not... :-) )
2.1) see 2.
2.B) (Not sure why its not 2.2, but..) See 2.
3) Waiting on playtest to show if this is a problem
4) No.
5) Not relevant. Other systems can still enguage Lyrans.
6) Not relevant. Other systems can still enguage Hydrans.

Just my 2¢... :-)

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 06:36 pm: Edit

SVC:
While I can easily deal with the idea of all MY ADD racks "being found to really be" (i.e. changed to) E-racks, PLEASE don't make the new date any later than Y165.

The reason is that is when ADDs really started to appear in fleets with the plus and B refits, and with the war cruisers.

Personally, I think that ADDs should have a YIS of about 150-155. (I have to check to see if there are any important ADD-using ships prior to 165.) But please, please don't introduce ADDs any later than 165.

(Point of clarification. I am NOT talking about the ASM, just the proposed new date for ADDs.)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Now here's an idea to throw around.

What if we invented something like this and thus made the ASM less desirable!?!


THE HIGH ENERGY ADD.

In about Y170, advanaces in chemistry allowed for the ADD to cast out its projectiles at a much faster velocity.

This meant the ADD could actually damage, ships.
It couldn't damage a ship if there was 1 point of armour or 1 sheild box between the launch vessel and target.
But if the ADD was Fired through a downed sheild then it would inflict damage on Collum of "HE-ADD" on the table below.

Die Roll HE-ADD
1 1 point of damage
2 1 point of damage
3 1 point of damage
4 1 point of damage
5 2 points of damage
6 2 points of damage


This leap forward in chemistry meant that when the ASM was developed it could actually damage ships, but like the HE-ADD was far less able to damage sheilds.
When the ASM strikes a target that has no Armour boxes left or No-shield boxes through the facing sheild, then the ASM shall inflict 1D6 damage ( or 2D6 if playtesting proove warrentted ).
However, if the ASM stikes a rasied sheild box or an Armour Box, then the damage inflcited by the ASM shall be greatly reduced such that the table below shall be followed ( the existance of shield or armour boxes shall be determined at the declairation of fire step of the impulse in which the weapon is fired and shall remain so for the entire remainder of the resolve direct fire weapons step of this impulse ).

Die Roll ASM Vs Shield
1 1 point of damage
2 1 point of damage
3 1 point of damage
4 2 points of damage
5 2 points of damage
6 3 points of damage



In this way we make the choice exist between choosing a weapon that can hurt the target vessel early in the battle ( the Type II and IM drones ) and choosing a weapon that can greatly damage a vessel, but only after the ship's shield boxes are removed.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Mike, I totally agree. Where the heck is this sudden change in the ADD year in service date coming from? Why have the rest of us not been told? Is this something we haven't seen in Module J2?

Y160-165 for ADDs seems like a more reasonable intro date. But please, please, please - not Y175!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 07:13 pm: Edit

M.K.:

About the "2.1 and 2B" thing.

G-racks can definatley launch ADD rounds and are large enough to fire Type-Is ...this is not true for ADD-6, ADD-12 or E-racks.

The 2B was about A-racks, which have no "can launch ADDs" aspect about them.

This is the resaon for the change.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Guys, read SVC's post again:

Quote:

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



As it stands right now, the ASM could be lauched by any RAIL OR RACK that can handle a Type-1 drone or Plasma-D.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Jeremy,
I guess that makes the F5D the frigate of choice for Klingons. Mmmmmmmmmm Penta-B Racks....

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 07:25 pm: Edit

6) Not relevant. Other systems can still enguage Hydrans.

Actually this Relevant.

You see S.P.P., wants the Lyrans to have a superior weapons over the Hydran fighters to offset the fact that Hydrans can generate superior numbers.


As it stands, the Hydrans can loose their entire squadron from their Carrier group destroying the Lyran squadron ( and doing quite poorly at that task if they did), and then the Hydran fighters from the D7H and that cruiser with the 9 Fighters can effectively replace that entire squadron giving the Hydrans a full squadron with no Lyran squadron to tackle it.
Sure there'll be carrier lending problems, but if one of the fighters is an EWF, then the squadron can opperate independantly anyway. BUT if you organise it such that it's the 11 fighters from the non-carriers that died for the purposes of destroying the Lyrans, then the carrier loaning problem won't exist.


The Hydrans effectively have a zombie army when it comes to fighters and the Lyrans don't.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 07:32 pm: Edit

MJC,
Then you use the drones you can put on your fighters to hit them first...

B=]

IF Lyran fighters can compete with Hydran fighters now, then the ASM does not effect this balance. If Lyran fighters cannot compete with Hydran fighters now, then the ASM does not effect this balance.

The ASM was proposed by SVC, not SPP.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, August 19, 2002 - 07:58 pm: Edit

I understood that this weapons wasn't limited to just Lyrans...in fact, if I read it right, it hasn't really anything to do with Lyrans at all...it's for any drone using race. That would include Lyran fighters bought from the Klingons, but not Lyran ships or PF's.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation