Loren: Better if you guess.

(At least, it's much more amusing for me if you try.--Catbert)

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 01:57 pm: Edit

I'd rather have Tony be right and for you to not be serious about adding the ASM into the game.

By Stephen Cobb (Ghengiskhabb) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 01:58 pm: Edit

I will agree that ASMs appear to be unbalancing/dangerous on the surface. I however am very much in favor in reducing the number of counters on the map and this appears one way to do it.

These things will undoubtedly be playtested by a lot of people. Some of them even know what they are doing. I hope that these things are made right and are a released, because the payback is another tactical option and less counters to push around. The designer(s) have worked very hard to keep the game balanced with variety (which are competing requirements). I trust the designers to kill it if it changes the game too much.


I do not know if this has been asked, but can ASMs be put on a Scatter Pack?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Very well. I'll put my thinking cap on and get back later. You have left some clues. One is SPPs quick turn around.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 02:03 pm: Edit

No scatter pack. Can put them on a drogue but if so can only fire them one at a time.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 02:08 pm: Edit

On a totally different topic...

Considering I haven't seen J2 yet also.....

What if the Romulans kept improving the Masking Device, and were able to install these on Bombers? Bomber's being to small and underpowered for Cloaking Devices, but big enough for an improved and minituarized Masking Device. And also keeping an established technology and improving it in a different direction. Also the Romulans 'practicing' with the Masking Device, were eventually able to make the Cloaking Device fit on SC5 ships when the PFs come out.

Giving them a way to hide from long-range sensors, and conduct suprise strikes against the Federation and Gorns. So making it slow to advance into Romulan space, because of the fear of hidden bomber bases that could tear up supply routes.

Everyone seems to keep calling for a "Stealth Fighter/Bomber" but why does it have to be a Federation Goodie. Why not a "Romulan Goodie".

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Scott. I think that's a good idea. Whether its the MASK or VEIL would need to be playtested, but it would definately give those speed 1 bombers what they need. (note: Mask/Veil is not compatible with Warp engines)

Loren: It is not currently established that the Romulans had missiles prior to plasma. My current guess is that they had a DF plasma weapon (precursor to bolted plasma). Missiles (that have to be guided) are not very compatible with stealth technology that requires FC be off.

NOTE: My Sub-Light comments are purely my personal speculation and do not represent the official view of ADB, Inc. or any of its employees

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Andy: The bolts were the precursor to the torpedos.

Scott: Hear, hear!! Why should the Federation be the only ones to research stealth technolgy for their fighters when the Romulans are so far ahead in that field. I'm sure they could come up with something to do for their smaller units.

But on another, more negative note, why do we need a J3? Let's see what J2 holds in store for us and be content with that. I, personally, don't want the fighter modules to start crowding out the starship modules.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Well, I have some of the old Sub-light rules around somewhere and IIRC all races used missles and lasers. Perhaps this has been changed but I haven't heard as much.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 03:01 pm: Edit

If I had to hazard a guess, it would be that the idea behind the ASM is to make SFB fighters behave just a bit more like real-world fighters whilst reducing the overall number of counters on the map.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 03:07 pm: Edit

I like the veiled bomber idea.

Jessica: They do that, but that's not it.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Robert. Yes, bolted plasma is a precursor to plasma torpedoes. My point is that my guess is that a DF Plasma weapon (perhaps "plasma blaster" in keeping with the Y1 terminology) was a precursor to the Bolted Plasma (which I call a Plasma Cannon to avoid SSD and conversation confusion with bolted plasma torpedoes).

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 05:54 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Jessica: They do that, but that's not it.

---

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 05:56 pm: Edit

Andy: k, gotcha.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 06:45 pm: Edit

This is turning into one of those Zen-like puzzles with no answer; you know, like "What's the sound of one hand clapping?" and that sort of thing? Seriously, though, I get this nagging feeling that the purpose of the ASM proposal is to teach everyone on this board a lesson...I just don't know what that lesson might be.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 07:01 pm: Edit

Lesson- how to be Charlie Foxtrot?

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 07:24 pm: Edit

Ok, the answer to the ADD Year in Service Date "panic attack" that I had yesterday:

In CL24, on pg 40, the year in service date of ADDs was asked. The first appearance of an ADD rack is on the Klingon Tug-B, Y124. However, it goes on to say that as the Middle Years become better defined, all ADD racks on ships prior to the appearance of speed 20 drones might become E-racks. Medium speed drones appeared in Y165, the same year many ships receive refits that add ADD or G-racks.

Panic attack over, Y165 is totally cool for the intro date of the ADD. It was the Y175 date mentioned that almost gave the Klingon in me a heart attack.

This would also give the ASM a YIS date of Y165 (or there abouts).

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Veiled bombers are a great idea-- and if the veil for the bomber (unlike ships) coudl be made to work for warp capable bombers, it might give a better reason to why the Alliance didn't go for the "final KO" after Remus-- the romulans were churning out every bomber they could, which couldn't offensively threaten the alliance, but could chew up any "mop up forces".

And I too like the idea of keeping this out of Fed hands-- Stealth works better for the romulans, or Orions, and the Orion's would never have built any bombers to begin with.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Mike R. Yup, I get the same feeling. I think there is two assumptions one can start with here. One, the ASM is not a serious proposal and two the ASM is a serious proposal. Two reasons, bipolar.

So how do you read the man when you aren't anywhere nere him. And are you going off in the wrong direction in analizing SPPs roll in this. You see, for a post or two he was...well he seemed shocked. I was surprised by his first posts after SVC proposed the ASM. Then shortly after he was on board with it giving (rather enlightening) tactics on fighter ops. Obviously there had been a private conversation between them.

Hmmm. My conspiracy theory's dangeling.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 08:07 pm: Edit

Loren,

Well, it's just curious. In the past, I'd have sworn that had anybody submitted this, they'd have been dismissed immediately. I mean, really, think about it. The ASM can (potentially) do more damage than a phaser 1, overloaded disruptor, or standard photon. It costs no power to use, is available fairly early, is EW resistant, and cannot be defended against with ADD's, Plasma D's, or aegis fire control systems. Add the fact that it can be carried by fighters of ANY race, and you're looking at a game-altering weapon that will make fighters something everyone has to really pay close attention to. I mean, really close attention!

That about sum it up? So, why would SVC pose this? What's it really all about? I have no clue, but I'm definately curious about it.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 08:08 pm: Edit

idea creator.....

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 08:20 pm: Edit

I still think the ASM should be a limited or restricted availability item if it is eventually added to SFB, particularly if playtesting proves it to be as powerful a weapon as my gut tells me.

I know that brings up the question of how to handle that on plasma ships. For Pl-D replacements, make it available as a replacement for an equivalent percentage of the Pl-D spaces. Reloads would be free and would be proportional to the number purchased for the pods or rails (just like drones).

Oh, BTW, I still don't like the ASM in general and I'd prefer they were just a bad dream SVC decided to inflict on me. Change bad, Fear change, Change bad!

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 08:24 pm: Edit

The ASW sounds like an X-weapon for fighters, not a General War weapon.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Another dumb question, whilst we're at it:

When fired from a plasma rack at a size-class 5 target, what's the ASM's firing rate?


And as to its purpose:

The ASM might be to make a bomber simulate a real bomber, but (not having J2 yet) I don't know whether it would do it. I suppose a B1 firing 4 of these, a couple of photons and the odd phaser or two on one impulse wouldn't leave much in its wake...

Considering that the F-111 and its kin can carry type-4 drones, I suppose someone ought to ask - is there a plan for a APM (anti-planet missile) that's twice the size, can't hit SC5-7 but does 4d6 to ships out to R8? Please say no...

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Jim,
Don't be silly. There is nothing to model such a weapon after. Now a cluster bomb is a different story...