How about somthing long range for plasma races. Curently thay have nothing to compeat with drone races.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Tim, there are already play test rules for faster/longer ranged plasma torpedoes. Remember, torps are shorter ranged, but much harder to stop then drones, and (if you make the drone player pay for all of his goodies), often have a BPV advantage, in addition to having no ammunition problems.
If we do something to make them equal at the long range approach battle, what do we do to re-equalize the close range "gorn hug of death" battle?

By Tim rodgers (Mericon) on Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 02:41 pm: Edit

I will admit the dangers of plasma. However any direct fire race with drones that lets a plasma race get close deserve to get plasterd.

I have tried three times to fight feds vrs ISC and been smashed by prox photons and drone waves. I deal with drones fairly well never gitting hit but having a ship of cruser size nearly cripeld every other round gets rather tiresome. PPD's are relitivly inefective past range 20.

This is why I have asked for somthing longer ranged for fighters If nothing else just to make the apponits use some phaser power.

Late war feds dont need to slow to arm photons. and PPD's realy slow a ship down to arm. Thus never catching the fleet.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Charles, while plasma does have a number of strengths relative to drone users having lower BPV's is not one of them. The Firehawk is a pretty even match for the Kzin or Klingon CC's.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 06:02 pm: Edit

Just ask your opponent to play on a closed map. Use 4 maps or so. Should be more fun.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 07:59 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I will admit the dangers of plasma. However any direct fire race with drones that lets a plasma race get close deserve to get plasterd.

---

---

Quote:

Late war feds dont need to slow to arm photons. and PPD's realy slow a ship down to arm. Thus never catching the fleet.

---

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 12:10 am: Edit

MJC-- I don't know of any exact analogue, but I would suggest the Hyper velocity missiles that were designed in the 1980's for a cheap tank killer-- today being developed as LOSAT.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 01:40 am: Edit

MJC: Something could break the game without obviously and directly breaking the game.

For example, frequent proposals for Hydran Stingers with 12 damage points have been shot down as unbalancing. The ASM provides DF ability comparable to Fusion Beams. Many seeking fighters that could carry ASMs have 12 damage points. Thus, the ASM would turn seeking weapon fighters into units equal or better than rejected game breaking improved Stingers.

This excludes the other advantage presented by seeking weapon fighters since the opponent does know whether the fighters are carrying ASM or operating seeking weapons. The proper defensive tactics for use against ASM fighters differs from from those needed for defense against seeking weapons. My testing indicates ASM fighters are broken when used against a defensive force that knows the fighters are carrying ASMs. ASM fighters must be more effective against opponents unsure as to fighter load out.

Similar testing indicates that rack launched ASMs also break the game, even when the opponent knows the racks are exclusively carrying ASMs. Again, should the ASM ship have the full range of surprise available, the results for ASMs should be even better.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 02:01 am: Edit

I have some of the same experiences with ASM's-- they seem too powerful as written-- giving every fighter a chance to score up to 12 points from up to five hexes out is very dangerous-- and leaves the fighter beyond many point defense weapons effective range.
Now, a few possible fixes raise their head. First of all, how about if a fighter cannot use heavy/seeking weapons in the same turn it fires an ASM? This both prevents the ASM/drone combo, and makes it easier to tell if you're about to face an ASM attack.
There are some others, but I don't want to post them until Ihvae a chance to play 'em out.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 06:54 pm: Edit

Richard Wells:

You are taking the Stinger with a dozen damage points out of context. When you discuss adding two damage points to stingers, you are discussing adding (assuming three Rangers, three Horseman, three Lancers, a Lord Marshal, a Paladin, and a New Scout Cruiser . . . a typical but not out of line) 162 damage points. Adding two damage points to just the four Stingers on one ship would not be seen as much of a problem. The problem stems from the fact that there are a LOT of Stingers.

Even if ASMs are added, you are not adding them to more (typically) than 24 fighters if a CVA is present (and this assumes that no EWFs are in that 24 fighters).

Context matters. No matter how many times some people on this topic harp on just the fighters, the fact is that in their typical employment they come with a lot of "baggage". To have a squadron of Kzinti TAAS fighters, the Kzintis will have to bring a CMV, MAC, and DWA at the minimum (I am ignoring the DDV as it is in essence an aberration). In essence when you look at fighters with ASMs they can overwhelm a target if you only look at the fighters and the target. Typically the fighters will show up with their support baggage, and in so doing a balanced battle is going to give that much BPV to the side opposing the fighters.

Yes, scenarios can be created where the fighters are launching an "independent strike", but such situations are handled in the same manner as if a Kzinti Needle Flotilla is launching an independent strike. Either you balance the scenario, or you watch as one side gets slaughtered and then do something else.

Will adding ASMs turn the game into "Star Wars"? If you want it to, I guess it would. You could just as easily in your own group choose not to use carriers and fighters. Some groups do that already because there was never a mention of fighters in "original Trek". Some groups do not play with PFs for the same reason. Some groups operate the Feds with Mech links and the conjectural Fed PFs and ignore the historical background that the Feds never build PFs. Some groups never use anything but Hydran Hellbore ships and ignore the fusion ships. And some groups only play with the races that were part of Original Trek and ignore the Hydrans, Lyrans, Kzintis, ISC, et al.

Focusing on the narrow point of assuming a squadron of fighters has reached (under the original rules proposed for the ASM) range five and just rolling the die to determine the damage to the cruiser you chose as the target is simply not valid. Refusing to adjust previous defense paradigms to account for a new weapon is simply not valid. Tactics have to evolve to meet new challenges. Countering enemy fighters with fighters of your own for example.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 09:20 pm: Edit

Andrew Palmer:

Guess what.

You simply have consistently failed to read the Missives I have posted in any thing like a fair and open manner.

I have gone over defenses repeatedly. I have countered your tactics and demonstrated more than adequate means in battles to counter the attack of the ASM fighters.

You have simply consistently ignored them, or rejected them (without demonstrating why they would not work), or in one astounding case completely misinterpreted them.

My messages are all in this topic. You can read them, but I do not propose to go back through the entire file for you to relist messages that you simply will not read.

By Ryan Peck (Trex) on Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 10:31 pm: Edit

I also find it hard to believe how we can expect to kill large amounts of fighters at range 5+.

Take a D-5C. (its the only SSD I have handy, If memory serves the regular D-5 has less power). It has a total of 34 points of power. House keeping cost 4, overload 2 dirs cost 8 (I dont want standard loads because UIM makes my shot more accurate and I really want them to hit), assume 4 phasers need recharging (god help me if I need to charge more), and I must spend 6 points of ECM, this leaves 32-22=10 points of power. That gives me speed 15. At this pace I cant dodge the fighters. At range 8 I fire my dirs and phasers. He uses SFT (Stupid Fighter Tricks) and grabs 10 ECM. I put up my 6 ECCM, and am shooting with a +2 shift. My UIM dirs hit on a 1-3 doing 8 each (I could fire 4 stds for the same power cost but my accuracy drops to a 1-2). One fighter takes 8 points. My phaser 1s (1 in 6 chance of each of doing 3,2,and 1 point, but a 3 in 6 chance of doing no damage). I can spend nothing in ECM and get speed 24.

This turn I have spent tons of power on ECM, and fire yet I have done minimal damage. True a lone D-5 against 12 fighters is asking to get it's butt kicked, but with 3 D-5s the basic truth is the same, with 1 C-9, 2 D7s, 2 D5s the basic truth is the same (This fleet has 22 dirs, if you overload them, 11 should hit, if you fire stds only 8 will hit not real good odds when you look at how much this cost you).

I can't keep up the speed, and fire weapons, and play the ECM game. Fighters can.

Bottom line, I think it will be too hard to kill fighters at the standoff range of 5. Am I doing something wrong here?