I've just hit upon my gut objection to this idea. Jeremy actually said it first, but it didn't really register with me at the time. SFB, to me, is Star Trek...and Star Trek is about capital ships, not fighters. The ASM makes the fighter too darn dangerous, IMHO (no offense, SVC, believe me) and makes a carrier, even a baby one, the weapon of choice. I like cap ship duels, and squadron engagements. I'd hate to see my beloved C9 or Fed DNH get taken down by a bunch of fighters because they got this new weapon.

That's just me, though, and I'm probably in the minority.

By David Crew (Catwholeaps) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 10:18 pm: Edit

My take on the ASM: It would certainly put a big stirrer in the tactics pot and add freshness to the game. I think there are counter tactics to them (no I don't know what they are ). The biggest role I see for them is allowing you to play LARGE drone based fleet battles (which currently are almost masochistic in scope).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 10:34 pm: Edit

D.C.:


Counter ASM Tactics.

---

Quote:

Cripple the fighters before they reach R5.

---

By David Crew (Catwholeaps) on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 03:01 am: Edit

MJC:

Counter ASM Tactics: If "Cripple them before they get to range 5" is your only tactic you deserve to lose. That is an anti-Stinger tactic (where for range 5 read range 2) being applied to a different weapon system - and it won't work as well. The key weaknesses of the ASM is that it counts as a drone launch, and you can only fire one per impulse (if we follow the RALADD rules). If you can make the fighter launch drones in self-defense, or drop chaff you've achieved your aim (if you can capitalise on it).

Other counters (off the top of my head):

1) Change your fleet deployments so you have some escorts (like frigates) for your bigger ships. Shove the escorts a couple hexes closer to the fighters than your more valuable ships. Either the fighters target the escorts (in which case your bigger ships now have an opportunity to kill the fighters) or the fighters risk death from the escorts to get close to the bigger ships (Oh - wait - that would break our 'all ships in one hex' fleet 'formation' - we can't have that!).

2) Realise that until WBP's are invented these fighters are about as fast as a type II drone. How hard is it to out maneuver a type II drone? Simple don't LET the fighters get to range 5.

3) Use the same solution you would to a squadron of F-14D's charging at you (they can launch 44 drones at range 5 - how do you deal with that? ED and weasel? (guffaw)).

As a fighter weapon I can see ASM's make fighters rather more interesting. Putting them in every rack under the sun... It may make Kzinti's truly fearsome. The optimum range of ASM's though doesn't mesh well with their other weapons (Disruptors and P-3's) which could mean separate volleys, opportunities to turn shields away etc. It DOES mesh well with P-1's which is nasty.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 11:41 am: Edit

Secret purpose of ASM discussion: No, it’s not to teach everyone a lesson.

ASM and ADD service rate: Yes, Y165, that’s it. I couldn’t remember and thought it was Y175. At least I had two of the numbers right.

Charles Gray’s Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 07:38 pm comment on veiled bombers was very good.

Loren Knight: "Obviously there had been a private conversation between [SVC and SPP]."
That conversation happened on the way to the airport, after SPP’s last post on this board. He was shocked at what I had to say about the real purpose of the ASM. He also told me that I was wrong to allow it to hit fighters, hence I changed that.

Jeremy Gray: "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."
SVC: Playtesting will tell. Gut feelings do not count.

Jim Davies: "When fired from a plasma rack at a size-class 5 target, what's the ASM's firing rate?"
SVC: One per rack per turn regardless of rack type or target type or the phases of the moons of Aldebaran. One per turn by any kind of fighter or bomber.

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...
REPLY: No such plans exist. At least, they didn’t until you mentioned it. Let me see. Only attacks planets (general damage) or bases on planets. Range 5, 4d6 damage, yeah, I could dig that, but it would be a two-space weapon and couldn’t be handled by a lot of launchers.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Mike Raper: The ASM makes the fighter too darn Dangerous and makes a carrier, even a baby one, the weapon of choice.
SVC: I am not sure that this is entirely true. The ASM must be fired from relatively close range compared to a drone, the rate of fire is low (one per turn) which means coming into short range repeatedly, and the damage is highly variable and averages half of what a drone can do anyway.

Loren Knight: "I would say that the intent is to poll the players [as to what kind of game the players want]."
SVC: I’m not that clever, subtle, or sophisticated.

By michael john campbell: "I think I was right their first time. SVC was pulling our collective leg."
SVC: No, I wasn’t pulling your leg, I was just tossing out an idea. Now, as to WHY I tossed out that idea...

David Crew: It would certainly put a big stirrer in the tactics pot and add freshness to the game.
SVC: It would, at that.

michael john campbell: Counter ASM Tactics. Cripple the fighters before they reach R5. That's pretty much it.
SVC: Yes.

David Crew’s Counter ASM Tactics
SVC notes these astute observations as salutes in respect those remarks and Andy Palmer’s comments as well.

Daniel G. Knipfer: "I don't think that ASMs should be able to fire from an ADD launcher. ASMs are described as being one space, drone-like units. ADD are 1/2-drone space units."
SVC is sorry if anything he said confused people into thinking ASMs could be loaded into or fired from ADD racks. They cannot be, as they are too big to fit the rack.

Jim Cummins: Two theories....
1) It's a cool idea, that can be fun and add a new dynamic.
SVC: Yes, it is that.
2) It is the initial survey for interest in a new SFB module.
SVC: No.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 01:45 pm: Edit

C-rack. Hmm... Let's say one ASM as part of the normal drone launch rate of two per turn.