Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through November 11, 2007	25		11/12 08:43am
	Archive through November 15, 2007	25		11/16 02:12pm
	Archive through November 20, 2007	25		11/20 05:50pm
	Archive through November 22, 2007	25		11/23 12:44pm
	Archive through November 24, 2007	25		11/25 01:17am
	Archive through November 29, 2007	25		11/30 11:56am

Well, it's an issue if the six plasmas do target a single target (which they may not IIRC). But if they do then a WW is very effective. Even so, the ship could still shotgun both plasmas and produce just as many plasmas (in a fleet situation this is a good tactic because there are enough targets. I did this once with all six of my ships shotgunning on my enemies six ships. Every ship without a weasle took a pounding.)

In the mean time if the Booster take only four or even six points to kill then there is a vulnerability. It is worth it to fire a few Ph-1's and kill a few at range. I would also assume that the Boosters would be vulnerable to drone attack. So the plasma fleet moving in behind a wall of Boosters can be countered. Of course this requires an expendature from the enemy fleet but that is the balance.

BTW, I forget what RPS means.

I'd also point out that the PB ship (per my suggested proposal) would have to always arm it's plasmas as shotgun which has heavy power requirements.

Using PB Boosters in a fleet engagement won't be THAT easy. The better use would be off map with a fleet attack follow up on a fixed installation.

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Rock-Paper-Scissors.

By Jon Berry (Laz_Longsmith) on Friday, November 30, 2007 - 12:23 am: Edit

I still say it should Bolt the plasma, instead of launching a seeker. Lower damage, chance of miss. Makes it an option, not a doctrine.

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Friday, November 30, 2007 - 12:42 am: Edit

If a plasma D can't be bolted from a fighter, tthen I don't see how a plasma F could be bolted from the booster.

By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Friday, November 30, 2007 - 11:56 am: Edit

Fighter pilots care something for their skin. What does a booster care?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, November 30, 2007 - 12:42 pm: Edit

I think both are good points. I have said that a booster should be destroyed upon deployment (if only to keep the technology secret). However, I can see an issue of targeting complexity with bolting. It is one thing for a booster's computer to identify a target for the self-guiding torpedo to track and another to track it and lock-on for direct fire.

The former only requires ID'ing the target and assigning it to the torpedo. The later requires extremely precise tracking and course anticipation of an FTL unit. For boosters to be cheap I think they would go with the more basic system.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 30, 2007 - 01:49 pm: Edit

Loren,

Answering your earlier post:

Why *wouldn't* I want to give all 6 torps the same target list? Overkill is the only one that comes to mind.

Anyway it's the threat that matters.

You're welcome to shoot mass P-1s against boosters that will likely be outside range-8. If using william's expanded release range, outside range-15. (you shoot at these ranges because if you move within release range, you might end up with that faceful of F-torps you're trying to avoid)

You might not want to shoot phasers at the boosters in any case, because you're also struggling with the incoming normal plasma that the fleet shot off. (Remember the PB boosters are covering the plasma fleet's retreat)

With three PB ships in a fleet covering a launch from the 6 others, the opposing fleet will need to shoot through 7-10 S-torps (I'm assuming that a 9-10 ship fleet can do this pretty well if the formation's tight and they shoot every phaser they can bring to bear) only to be faced with the potential for 18 booster-mounted F-torps. A disruptor fleet can pop a good amount of boosters, but it will be trying to chase the plasma fleet having shot ecery phaser and disruptor it can muster, and the need to recharge all these weapons the following turn.

A photon fleet holding anything besides proxies is simply SOL, never mind that it will take 2 prox photons to kill a booster, same as 2 disruptors.

The plasma fleet would love to see their enemy weasel in this scenario. Whatever ship weasels is one less ship chasing the plasma fleet. The fleet has the choice of choosing not to chase of getting spread apart and separated. If three ships of the enemy fleet weasel (one per flight of 6 boosters), the loss might be enough edge for the plasma fleet to consider doubling back and engaging.

By William J Gauthier (Vortia) on Monday, January 19, 2009 - 10:02 am: Edit

Okay, after a loooong quiet period, I'd like to kick this conversation alive again, so if I could, I'd like to go back to the original rules I wrote and try to create a list of issues to address so we can get this all worked out.

1.) A big concern seems to be the rate of fire. Some people seem to think that 24 Plasma-Fs in a single turn is overwhelming to a Base's defense. The solution to this seems to either lower the number of launchers per hull (replace all Plasma Torps on a ship 1-for-1, leading to around 4 tubes on a Heavy Cruiser hull), decreasing the number of boosters, or both.

2.) After numerous concerns mentioned about distance of release from target, I think this should be customizable and set by the firer at the time of firing.

3.) I had tried to make the boosters strong enough in terms of armor to make up for the lack of numbers vis a vis bombardment drones, but some people seem concerned that the amount of damage they can absorb still needs to be lowered. If we are going with a lower number of launchers per ship, I'm not so sure, but if we keep the number higher, then perhaps the amount of damage a booster can absorb should go down.

4.) Concerns have been raised about this being used in non-bombardment roles and fleet actions. I think these concerns are overstated, because Plasma races traditionally struggle to engage targets on floating maps, and tame-boar launches are still highly restrictive, but if deemed necessary, the myopia for launching the torpedo could concievably be extended to 30 hexes or so.

5.) Release of the Plasma Torpedo upon the destruction of the Booster is overpowered I wrote it in an attempt to prevent fighters from easily mangling the boosters ahead of the targets, but the result is not particularly dangerous to fighters (the Fighter simply HETs and runs away) but instead devastates a base or fixed target attempting to defend itself. When the booster is lost the torpedo needs to be lost.

All in all, the primary balance problem with the rules as I wrote them, as is being relayed to me by the posters on this thread, is that thought must be put into balancing Plasma-Bombardment Ships offensive capabilities so that they are not overwhelmingly more difficult to defend against than Drone Bombardment ships. The difficulty in this comes from the change that occurs when the booster, with it's low damage capacity, fires and the defensive capacity of the round suddenly balloons into that of a full Plasma torpedo.

If we take the example of a Klingon Drone Cruiser with 6 B-Racks, you have a total of 36 Drones launched without reloading, taking 144 points of damage to destroy. Ergo, 140 points of damage translates into 3.6 Plasma-F Torpedoes at full strength, but they would likely be released from their boosters a little earlier, so let's say 4 over 6 turns would be equivalent in defensive value. Unfortunately, the booster will likely be nowhere near as resilient. If we decide a booster could absorb up to 8 damage points, then we have 18 boosters equivalent of 36 Type-IIIXX Drones. The balanced result must be somewhere in the middle. I understand Steve Petrick's concerns that if too many torpedoes can survive to be released at close range, the result would be completely impossible to defend against. On the other hand, if the boosters cannot survive to reach the target at all, then the weapon is useless.

The average of 4 & 18 is 11, but for ease of math and ship refitting, I'm rounding that to twelve. Twelve over 6 turns is 2 Dual-Stage Plasma Torpedoes per turn.

How do you feel if we alter the proposal to so that a Dual Stage Plasma Torpedo Launcher becomes a three box launcher similar to a Type-D Drone Rack? Each box in the rack will include a stasis box and two boosters, and may charge a Plasma-F Torpedo to hold for placing in the booster. each Launcher could only launch one DS Plasma Torp per turn, but could be actively charging two others whilst it is firing. These racks would be exceedingly large, and would only be able to replace Torp Launchers larger than standard F types. I'm envisioning Heavy Cruisers carrying only two of these types of launchers. The result is a Heavy Cruiser which will launch 12 Dual-Stage Plasma Torpedoes over the course of six turns, having then exhausted it's ammunition. Whilst traveling towards the target, the Dual-Stage Plasma Torpedoes would be at a disadvantage to a Drone Bombardment wave, because they would be vulnerable to most all the same techniques which are effective against drones, but they have less actual ability to take damage. Once they arrive at the target, however, they would become much more powerful, meaning that people would have to make sure to prioritize screening the target whilst the torpedoes are still on their boosters.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, January 19, 2009 - 06:40 pm: Edit

Why not use the Plasma Torpedo Drones in the Other Proposals thread? It's probably an easier sell than what you're proposing.

By William J Gauthier (Vortia) on Monday, January 19, 2009 - 07:01 pm: Edit

I don't see that as anything anyone with Starfleet Games wants to do, nor do I think that is a good idea. Firstly, Plasma Drones are a slipperly slope which will just see everyone want Plasma Drones. Secondly, it eliminates what is unique about the Plasma Races. Thirdly, I have gotten a lot of positive feedback about this idea, it is just going to take some work to balance it.