Archive through August 27, 2002
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
Module J3: Back in the Cockpit:
Archive through August 27, 2002
No pod rails. I'm not sure how to give ASMs to Hydrans or Tholians without giving them new fighters, but then, even that is not impossible.
They can fire into but not through or out of webs.
I can see the problem for Tholian fighters, but I don't think not having ASM's is really an issue for the Hydrans. Besides, NOT having them lends uniqueness to the game, IMHO.
I would be very reluctant to take ASMs against a pure Hydran Fleet at 3BPV each.
If the fighters lead then my fighters are Ph-Ged to death outside of ASM range of his ships. I have just paid 3BPV per fighter for a useless weapon.
If his ships lead he uses Fusion Beams on the fighters and saves the gattlings for my ships. Better but not great.
DougL
Agreed. Hydrans would not worry very much about ASMs... nor would they especially need them, the fusion is still scarier (barring ridiculously good luck by ASM shots form range 5).
Tholians might want them... but then again maybe not...
SVC,
If ASMs could be fired to the adjasent hex by the fighter stuck in web, it would go a long way towards explaining (to me at least) how the Klingon Swarm managed to take out Tholian bases...
SVC answer to my web question pretty much made the Tholians safe (or reasonably safe) from ASMs.
So far I gather that the ASM will only change the game by making mistakes more costly. Which is something to consider. There has been many a game where I have mad a mistake and managed to recover.
ASM's where a weapon with a chance to change the dynamic of fighter operations. Now its just another knife fight weapon. BLAGH...
Leave it using the standoff range table,ban it from racks(or make it resticted for all but carriers),lower the damage if need be(2d6-2 or 1d6+2),and last make it hit size class 4 or larger to keep it from killing PFs to easy.
Idea....
With ASMs coming in about 175, wouldn't most raced improve their close anti-fighter defences a bit to counter?
say, starting in 177, you can upgrade ADD rounds (.25 BVP each?) to use SVC's original to hit chart for the ASM. This would give every ship a greater capacity for removal of inbound fighters. At about the same time an enlarged D-rack would be available (+2 or +4 D-torps per rack).
Mark Kuyper:
I see . . . and the Hydrans, Lyrans, and Tholians will get????
Chris may have a good idea (or maybe not, or maybe the whole ASM idea is bad, or good).....
Robert, bash up a separate rule set FASM (Fighter Anti-Ship Missile) along those lines (more accurate at range 5, cannot be used by ships, cannot shoot at PFs or fighters).
am I correct in thinking that this will be the first weapon in the game to require both a roll to-hit and a roll for damage?
what's the technobabble justification for the two seperate rolls?
if there are two rolls shouldn't EW affect both of them?
thinking about this a little bit (my apologies if this is rehashing old ideas, I'm arriving in the middle and have only read the last couple archives)
how about the following
in Y??? the federation developed a new drone drive system that enabled speeds far faster then anything else in space (speeds fast enough to be immune to any existing or projected poitn defense systems), the problem was that these drives worked wonderfully from test stands, but vaporized themselved when fired in close proximity to a running drive of any kind. Thinking that they could salvage something out of this R&D disaster the federation leaked the preliminary research data to the orions (who, as expected sold it to everyone) in the hopes that the coalition would waste a significant effort trying to 'perfect' them. they of course told their allies the rest of the details.
FASM were developed when a clever Kzinti realized that since drones could be guided it was possible to just drop them off into space and launch from there rather then launching directly from the fighter. The kzinti did some testing of their new idea and deployed them fleetwide in Y??? within a year all other races had copied the idea (useing the research the orions gladly sold everyone)
There were several drawbacks to the resulting system.
1. the new drives would burn themselves out after only 5 hexes of travel.
the fact that the new drives would self destruct if there was any active stabilization meant that they would tumble on release and then turn to pursue the target when the drive fired up. This had several additional effects on the system
2. they couldn't be used from any unit mounting a shield without dropping the shield on that facing. (while it is _possible_ to mount them on a ship, no designer was ever foolhardy enough to want to explain to the admirals that to use this new weapon the capitan would have to drop the shield facing the enemy at close range)
3. they were found to be more accurate at longer range.
4. the damage produced tended to be erratic even under ideal conditions.
5. In addition since the FASMs were correcting their course up to the instant of impact it was found that they had severe problems targeting small units. (when firing at PFs act as if the target is 3 hexes closer then it is, when fired at shuttle sized targets act as if the target is 4 hexes closer then it is)
target must be in the FA arc of the fighter (possible exception for large fighters or fighters with better then normal sensors???)
damage
roll 1D6, ADD the range to the target, and subtract any EW shift, then look on the following chart to find your damage.
invert any range effects due to cloaks (i.e. subtract from the range during the fade-in/out period rather then adding to the effective range)
cannot be fired under passive fire control
| roll+range-EW | 0-6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| damage | 0 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 6 |
note: a result of 12 is only possible with an Ace pilot giving a favorable EW shift. the max range is 5.
this results in the following average damage
| range | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5+EW shift |
| damage | 0 | 1 | 1.67 | 2.83 | 3.67 | 5 | 6 |
thoughts??
SPP asked in relation to improved ADD's for fighter defense:
"I see . . . and the Hydrans, Lyrans, and Tholians will get????"
The Hydrans have lots of stingers so hardly fear a few fighters with ASM's. The Lyrans have ESG's which block ASM's and the Tholians have web which again negate ASM's. They don't need anything.
Lyran ESG's will probably be used anyway if fighters are approaching that closely so it probalby will have little if any effect on them
tholian web only helps at their bases, yes they have webcasters and snares but that's probably not really sufficiant I think they will need something.possibly a new fighter design that carries FASMs and/or just tacking on a few external fighter bays on more ships (think tholian hybrid ships)
the hydrans will need something as well, possibly actual deployment of the stinger-III? remember that the FASM is most effective at R-5 and the fusions and P-2's on the hydran ships and fighters aren't that effective outside R2-3.
how about gatlings being the only thing that can intercept FASM's?
The idea of Fighter Anti-ship missiles is a good one-- and it duplicates both RW rocket pods and the Starfire Frams...albeit not as devastatingly (not an argument, Starfire, with the exception of warp poitn assaults, is a very fighter dominant universe).
But Chris Watson has a good point. If the system is made balanced, will it simply become another option, without changing the dynamic, and if so, is it worth it?
That comes down to several questions, not the least of what else is in J3. If it's the main rules in the product, I'd say include it-- but could ASM's and FASM's alone sell J3?
I'd like to suggest that while we continue discussing ASM's, lets pull away and ask, in general, what should be in J3? I'll start with the following item.
1. Holes that already exist in the fighter universe-- some races don't have that frigate carrier. While a "minor" part of a product, it would be a good place to plug such holes.
Beyond that, I have to confess being at something of a loss. There is a hard limit to what can become "real" in the SFB universe without changing the already existing chronology. OTH, would prototypes and never produced designs be enough to sell a product, or should that be relegated to steller shadows.
I'm not against J3 by any means, but I wonder if we've lost sight of what needs to be the first step-- figuring out in general what should be in it, and then going back and fixing those items so they work.
I think the ASM could be balanced, but it needs to balanced with respect to already existing weapons, ythe fusion beam and the disruptor emdiatley spring to mind.
The R10 Fussion cost 2 point to arm, but with one point can only reach R3 and the Disruptor can reach R10 but cost 2 points of power.
The ASM will cost Zero Power!
| Weapon | R0 | R1 | R2 | R3-4 | R5-8 | R9-10 |
| Diruptor To Hit | Na | 1-5 | 1-5 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 1-4 |
| Disruptor Damage | Na | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| Disruptor output | 0 | 4.166 | 3.333 | 2.666 | 2 | 2 |
| Fusion To Hit | 1-6 | 1-6 | 1-6 | 1-5 | 1-5 | 1-5 |
| Fusion Damage | 13 11 10 9 8 8 | 8 8 7 6 5 4 | 6 5 4 3 3 2 | 4 3 2 1 1 | 4 3 2 1 1 | 4 3 2 1 1 |
| Fusion Output | 9.833 | 6.333 | 3.833 | 1.833 | 1.833 | 1.833 |
| ASM To Hit | Na | 1-4 | 1-4 | 1-3 | 1-2 Max 5 | Na |
| ASMA DAMAGE | 2D6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | Na |
| ASM Output | 0 | 4.666 | 4.666 | 3.5 | 2.333 | 0 |
Now, after measuring these we find that whilst the output of the ASM is only slightly improoved over the Disruptor, we have the problem that it cost no power to organise, a ASM attack against a target.
I would therefore propose a reduction in the offensive firepower of the ASM through both a retardation of the ability to hit and a decrease in the inflicted damage as follows.
The weapon acts most closely as a bomb, travelling as a relatively unguided weapon, which makes it increadibly difficult to shoot down during it's flight which is why this drone acts like a direct fire weapon.
The bomb is droped to a location in space ( or on the ground ) and is then detonated by a coded subspace transmittion or by the touch plat impacting into something, it's increadibly inaccurate, but like a Proximity fuse Phot-torp, will explode, near enough to the target to inflict some damage.
| Range | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-5 |
| To Hit | Na (too close) | 1-4 | 1-2 | 1 |
Attacks on Size class 5 will need a second roll even if the attack was sucessful due to the small nature of the target.
Roll 1D6, If a 3 or less then PF is hit. If a 2 or less then an interceptor is hit ( if it was the target ).
Size class 6 are even harder to hit because of their small size, and so if the roll above was a 1 then another 1D6 may be rolled and if resulting in a" 1" then the fighter or shuttle is it.
Size class 7 targets are even harder to hit an if the roll above was a "1" then 1D6 may be rolled and if another "1" is rolled then the drone is struct.
PFs and interceptors will take double the determineded damage as rolled by the table below.
Fighters and shuttles take pentuple the damage determinbed by the table below and Drones will take 10 times the determined damage it was indeed the target of the attack.
Fighter & Shuttles on the ground at casual bases can be detroyed by ( dropping bombs ) ASM attacks, treating the ground the fighter sits on as the target and thus inflicting double the listed damage if struck but attacking as though the target were slightly smaller than an Interceptor needing "1" only on that first small target extra Die roll.
Damage Table.
When the damage is to be generated the square of the distance from the target and the ASM when it explodes shall greatly influence the damage inflicted by the ASM and as such 1D6 should be rolled and the table below consulted to determine the amount of damage inflicted.
| Die Roll | Damage |
| 1 | 12 |
| 2 | 6 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 6 | 1 |
In this way the weapon will have a greatly reduced output as follows.
| Weapon | R0 | R1 | R2 | R3-4 | R5-8 | R9-10 |
| NEW ASM To Hit | Na | 1-4 | 1-2 | 1 | 1 (Max 5) | Na |
| New ASM Damage | Na | 4.166 | 4.166 | 4.166 | 4.166 | Na |
| New ASM Output | 0 | 2.777 | 1.388 | 0.694 | 0.694 | 0 |
Which in my opinion is a far more reasonable damage generated by a energy free weapon.
With all due respect to you as FOG2 moderator 
...
I disagree. While I haven't always been happy with anti-fighter-capable toys given to the coalition which hurts the Hydrans (and maybe I was wrong), presumably ADB feels that the situation between the Hydrans and their enemies is balanced and/or as it should be.
Logically, if this is the case, then improving anti-fighter defenses give the Hydrans the shaft.
In any case, you seem to be confusing ASMs with the improved anti-fighter ADD. These are two completely different things. While ASMs may be derived from ADD technology, they are against SHIPS ONLY, and are a BIG ADD which can take the place of drones. On the other hand, an improved ADD is still just an ADD, but they are better, hurting stingers at longer range than before. The improved ADD was proposed to be given to ships to combat fighters carrying ASMs. This would not only hurt the Hydrans, but the Hydrans don't even have the benefit of the weapon (ASM) which is what the improved ADD is given to counter.
Edited slightly for clarity at 12:29 AM EDT.
Michael-- over all a good idea, but I think we should work on reducing the number of die roles. Specifically,
Quote:Attacks on Size class 5 will need a second roll even if the attack was sucessful due to the small nature of the target.
Roll 1D6, If a 3 or less then PF is hit. If a 2 or less then an interceptor is hit ( if it was the target ).
Size class 6 are even harder to hit because of their small size, and so if the roll above was a 1 then another 1D6 may be rolled and if resulting in a" 1" then the fighter or shuttle is it.
Size class 7 targets are even harder to hit an if the roll above was a "1" then 1D6 may be rolled and if another "1" is rolled then the drone is struct.
It might be wiser to try to find another way, as decreasing the number of potential rolls is always a good thing 
MJC: All your logic about the ASM seems fitting until you consider the one thing you forgot. You can't just compair the ASM to a disrupter or fusion beam and say it is more powerful because it requires no power.
Why the hell not? Because you don't replace anything to fire a disrupter or a fusion beam. You see anything capable of firing a ASM has had it's BPV balanced for launching a drone or a plasma-D. Things of VALUE unto themselves. So when you fire a ASM you are paying BPV for it PLUS forfeiting the use of another weapon. You don't have to give up a drone launch to fire a disrupter or fusion beam.
Also at that cost, it is a one time shot. Either of the other weapons keep firing. Particularly the Disrupter which fires every turn. Ya, a ship could fire ASMs every turn but it will be firing them at a larger force because you will pay through the nose for them. Three BPV is a lot to count on and just miss two thirds of the time (at R5). ANd if you get closer for a better shot, you are getting pummeled by that larger force.
look at the cost of late war drones, the ASM isn't that much more and while it may miss some of the time it can't be shot down either
SPP, while I generally agree with your position, I was surprised by your comment on using drones against fighters under EM:
Quote: Force them to drop out of erratic maneuvers to use their phasers to destroy the drones (making them better targets for direct-fire weapons)
I'm trying to figure out why they'd need to drop out of EM. The fighter automatically has 2 ECCM and the drone doesn't have any other ECM (short of a large number of ECM drones escorting the strike--one per ship). Furthermore, the fighter under EM can receive lent EW (probably from its carrier if in range), but it isn't critical.
Given that a ph-3 only has a 2/3 chance for a kill against a standard type-I drone (at range 1 with no EW shift), fighters usually have to fire 2 ph-3 per drone (this can be reduced if the fighter can buy time to fire on 2 impulses). Thus they usually have to commit 2 phasers per drone or risk seeing 1/3 the drones survive. This guarantees killing the drone. With a +1 shift (firing while under EW), commiting 2 phasers per drone only has a 1/36 chance to not kill a type-I drone.
In cases where the fighters don't have enough ph-3 to fire 2 per drone, a +1 shift only increases the fraction of surviving drones by 1/6 of the total (assuming one phaser per drone for all drones). This isn't negligeable, but is often the better end of otherwise letting the enemy ships get unshifted shots at the fighters. Is its also likely to be mitigated by the extra drones only doing half damage due to (D6.361).
I realize that the above is simplified by assuming type-I drones. Two unshifted ph-3 would guarantee killing a type-IV drone while two ph-3 with a +1 shift only have about a 72% chance of doing so. On the other hand, if the fighters are receiving 2 extra ECCM from some source, it is a moot point. And if using type-IV drones against fighters, I start to think about putting some armor in them (24 points of damage is way overkill).
I guess all I'm saying is that I rarely see fighters drop out of EW to fire at drones unless it is otherwise safe.
Loren wrote:
Quote:The great thing about SFB rules is that you don't have to use the ones you don't like.
I have to respectfully disagree here. This is only true if you are playing in an organized group that all share the same opinion. Otherwise, assuming the rule is not Optional, I'm forced to be prepared for an opponent who does want to use it. I tend to play in a fairly diverse and changing group(s). As such, I expect to be "forced" to use any rule not marked Optional (or not marked as requiring opponent agreement in (S8.0), in the case of ships) without really having the right to complain (short of being a spoiled brat and taking my marbles and leaving). House rules are great for a stable group with similar opinions. In a more flexible and open setting, they're disasterous (and usually only result in hurt feelings by most or all parties).
Dkass. That is true and I aluded to that in my post as well. I just see that some seem to be stressing pretty hard about the ASM. But I agree with you compleatly re: your above post.
I might be misreading your other post but you seem to misrepresent EM. Specificly are you saying that the fighter eccm counters the effects of EM? Because it doesn't. EM produces (depending what rules you use) either a +2 on the die roll or 4 ecm (effectivly +2). So I guess the fighter eccm still leaves a +1 to the die roll under EM. At R5 this is pretty bad under the P3 chart and really bad under the ASM chart. At R3 it isn't good either particularly since you are now also vulnerable to an asortment of anti-fighter weapons (including T-bombs).
Re: A escort could do all sorts of harm to a fighter squadron by dropping a shield, transporting a t-bomb or two into proper position, then turn on the next impulse. Sure the escort would be risking a lot but a small escort is a lot cheaper than a fighter squadron. This is only one of many possible dynamic close in fighter defences possible.