One must always remember the concept of a dynamic model. You cannot evaluate the ASM based on how easy or hard it is to get fighters without ASMs to range 5. The enemy fleet is going to try really really hard to stay out of that range until they have whittled down the fighters some.

Say you have a squadron of 12 fighters, each carrying two ASMs. You are approaching an enemy squadron as part of a fleet action. Let's assume just for simplicity that they can kill or cripple four of your fighters before you get into range. So we have eight fighters firing one ASM each. With a 2/3 chance of a hit, that is 5.33 hits, each scoring 2d6 damage (average 7) = 37 points of damage on let's call it the unreinforced 24-box #2 shield of a cruiser. That gives you 13 internals. The enemy then kills or cripples four of your fighters (assuming really bad luck, you are closer now so they should kill five or six). The remaining four fighters then score 18 points of damage on the 20-box rear shield of that same cruiser, more or less forcing it to get out of the battle.

I'm having some difficulty seeing what the big freeking problem is about the ASM. If you used drones, you'd have 24 drones fired from outside of range closing in on those ships. If you get 4 or 5 hits you have done the same damage, and you have your fighters left over to boot.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 05:42 pm: Edit

You can deal with the drones at as close a range as you deem necessary with a variety of methods. Not true with the ASM. You have to try to engage the fighters beyond your effective phaser range, expending a vast majority of your resources on fighters, leaving oyurself open to the rest of the other guy's fleet.
What about reversing the to-hit chart for the ASM. Make it a small chance to hit at range 5 and gets better at closer range. I mean, the missle isn't that bright and you have to "lead the target" even more the farther back you are. It would make the wewapon a bit more believeable (which is still stretching it, in my book).

By Kevin M. McCollum (Sfbl5r) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Wow. A weapon that does more damage than an overloaded disruptor but takes zero power. Nice. I see the Klingons building LOTS of D7D's. How about the C7 now? 4 more direct fire weapons for no power? Makes the Bismark less desireable than the Khirov. How about the standard C refited ship? Frigates with 4 of these suckers. Wow. No one sees a problem here?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Might be worth a shot, but even so, all of those drone defenses are not going to stop 24 drones and the total damage is about the same and the ASM fighters die while the drone fighters don't die.

By Kevin M. McCollum (Sfbl5r) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 05:57 pm: Edit

Killing 24 fighter launched drones as with a fleet is NOT an issue. I would be more concerned about the drones launched from the fleet. And my fighter squadron, if not engaging the enemy squadron is going to work on killing those drones. The fact that ASM does (on the average) more damage than an overloaded DISR at the same range IS a problem.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 06:22 pm: Edit

SVC. 24 drones are not that tough to stop. No weapon system in the game has as many defenses against it as drones.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 06:30 pm: Edit

Kevin:

Relax, then PLAYTEST and report your ASM findings.

ADB has a proven history of "getting it right" with SFB. Witness the fast cruiser product (R6):

ADB wanted to add six warp and convert two heavy weapons to phasers. Early playtest reports on the Kzinti BCF indicated that this ship could rush and tractor the target with the extra power, and then launch 4xType-IV drones on Imp-25 and again on Imp-1. ADB saw this as a real problem and held-up publishing fast ships until the "Kzinti Problem" was resolved. ADB found a solution and published it when reports indicated that they had a good fix.

ADB does not want folks to just look at an idea and say that they THINK that there might be a problem; they want you to TEST the idea and PROVE that there is a problem (or not).

By Kevin M. McCollum (Sfbl5r) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 06:48 pm: Edit

Chuck, I would love to test it but I don't have any opponents here. The one guy who I am playing is currently losing an admirals game in a BIG way (no ships lost on my side, several cripples; lots of fatalities on his side including 2 DN a BT and 2 CC)

The other handful of players here are typically too busy to play. I would KILL to be back in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area where there are quite a few active players.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 06:49 pm: Edit

How do we report metagame problems that can't be shown by playtesting?

In particular, I see the ASM as making most direct fire fighters obsolete. I don't know the "right" way to report this.

Consider the Federation CVA. With the ASM, I would trade the A10 squadron for an F18 squadron. They're faster, and armed with ASMs will have as much direct firepower. The A10 does have some potential advantages (notably its durability), but these rapidly become outweighted by the better F-18 versions (in particular, once the F18-B+ comes out and has more rails available, after using two for ASMs). And the F-18, regardless of the version, always have the ability to loiter with the F-14 at relatively safe long ranges and add their drones to the waves.

An even worse case is the Klingon C8V. The 6 Z-D now have no purpose. 6 Z-Y are in all ways superior. More direct firepower if desired, faster, more difficult to kill and, perhaps most importantly, capable of also acting in a stand off drone launch mode.

I haven't had time to look at any of the other races (and in the case of the plasma races it may depend on what the improved plasma fighters look like).

By David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 06:53 pm: Edit

I've seen hints but haven't seen any formal rules (sorry if I missed them) about how the ASM counts against drone launch rates and/or direct fire rates. I ask since phaser pods on rails act as direct fire weapons (as many as desired can be fired in any given impulse), while RALADS are under drone fire rates and a further 1/impulse firing rate.

Also, do these become active 8 impulses after launch like direct fire weapons, or 16 impulses like drones? I've been assuming 8 since they're a direct fire weapon.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 07:05 pm: Edit

I have answered the firing rate question (one per whatever per turn).

Petrick remarked to me on the way to the airport how cool it was that ASMs are active in 8 impulses.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 07:06 pm: Edit

Actually, I tend to agree with Kevin. That's not saying I'd be unwilling to TRY the ASM, but it's got quite a lot going for it compared to drones. Drones can be tractored, ADD'd, phasered, t-bombed, shot down with other drones, plasma-D'd, or just outrun. Not so with the ASM. The ASM gets all the benefit of the fighter heavy weapon (instant damage, no defense short of destroying/crippling the fighter itself) but has none of the usual cons; it's zero power. The only drawback I can really see to using it would be if you tried to only use ASM's, forcing your fighters into close range with the ship or base they're attacking. Imagine how much hell could be raised by a well-timed drone strike along with a bunch of ASM fighters...which do you shoot down?

I'll play it out if I can find a game, and will happily keep an open mind. But, I think this one may prove to be a bit much. Just my humble opinion.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 07:22 pm: Edit

I think that generally, the drone is the superior system-- heck, if I could I'd swap out all my heavy assault fighters for drone models!
the big point is do you see the fighter as a single sortie weapon-- a manned seeker, or a multi use weapon.
ASM's ae pretty nasty, like Fusions or P-g's. but getting in range is a severe problem-- you cannot expect to see your fighters return. They may wreak havoc-- but they won't be coming back.

Also, remember that if they can't be intercepted, there's no reason to hold any guns back from the fighters...`

By David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 07:41 pm: Edit

SVC wrote

---

Quote:

I have answered the firing rate question (one per whatever per turn).

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 07:55 pm: Edit

Mike R. brings up a point that I think was missing from your model SVC. Fighters with four or more rails. Twelve fighters could launch a wave of drones then follow them in and strike with ASMs over a turn break. Fighters that can fire two drones per turn could fire their ASMs and launch a second drone wave (albeit smaller). Those that survive can do it again on impulse one of the next turn.

This all said though, and as you said, and as Charles Grey wrote, the Squadron would be sacrificed to pull that off. But what havok they would create.

Fortunatly it is playtesting that tells the tale not speculation.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 08:56 pm: Edit

SVC,
While I like the ASM as a fighter weapon, I'm not too crazy about adding it as a ship mounted weapon. For an F5D this is a dream. An F5D would do on average 23 points of damage with an R5 alpha of these.

An F5D can go 31 after paying for housekeeping with 1.5 points of power left over. Makes these things very nasty for duals, especially since they have a turn mode of A. In fact doing a dual with one of these against something may show if/how broken it can be, especially if the enemy is a Hydran.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 09:02 pm: Edit

Don't forget that those racks have a 360 degree arc!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 09:20 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I'm having some difficulty seeing what the big freeking problem is about the ASM. If you used drones, you'd have 24 drones fired from outside of range closing in on those ships. If you get 4 or 5 hits you have done the same damage, and you have your fighters left over to boot.

---

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Isn't that how you play against a Fed?

brought to you by a devout Fed player.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Don't overlook the fact that the fighters have to get ot that range, tough before WBPs (makes you fragile) or megafighters (makes you more pricey).

I certainly don't like the idea of ships launching them...a very decisive advantage for drone ships over plasma ships. And how does a Klingon fire DF weapons out the back of his shuttlebay?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 10:35 pm: Edit

It's a drone that travels at stratigic warp speeds so as to be effectivly DF?

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 11:06 pm: Edit

Alex: If Stingers can make that range, so can ASM fighters. A quick test I did involved replacing Stinger-2s with Z-Ys mounting ASM carried on a Ranger. Ran the two Rangers each against a D7B and a F5B with fast drones. The Z-Ys mounting ASMs were 50% better using Stinger-style tactics than the Stingers were. That means each ASM should cost 3 BPV. The ASM is powerful enough to obsolete existing DF fighters.

I wanted as little difference between the two forces to get a handle on the effects of the ASM alone. Ranger+ with Stinger-2: BPV 201. Ranger with Z-Y plus 2 ASMs: expected BPV 210. D7B plus F5B: BPV 204.

By Jeff Williams (Jeff) on Friday, August 23, 2002 - 12:11 am: Edit

Ahh, at last. An actual playtest report. Please send more everyone.

Seriously, this whole debate from our ivory towers is pretty pointless until we haul out the map and counters and PLAY IT OUT. What we think will happen very often is not what actually DOES happen, especially on the fleet level. Many variables can subtly change the situation from one battle to then next.

So to everyone who thinks that ASMs suck: Playtest and proove it!!

For those that thing ASMs rock: Playtest and proove it!!

For those that are unsure: Playtest and find out!!

For those who could care less: Please disregard this diatribe and amuse yourself in some other fashion.