You may want to define if these can be carried on Fighters, and how.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 02:19 am: Edit

This is.....very interesting.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 06:33 am: Edit

It is indeed.

There is a critical weakness to this however.

There will always be too few of these to harrass the enemy. Suppose the ship has 4 launchers, which would be a lot, as each launcher would need to be bigger than a plas-F, possibly taking as much space as a plas-G.

They fire every three turns (arming cycle for plas F).

So, thats four boosters every 3 turns. Let's see what the enemy can do....

1) Launch 4 counter drones. All they have to do is impact more than 8 hexes from the booster target and the problem goes away.

2) Switch off the boosters with scouts. Not difficult.

3) Shoot at them. Given that these 4 boosters are the long range firepower of a heavy destroyer for 3 turns of arming, it would not be unreasonable to find 24 damage at range to blow them up.

4) Launch fighters/shuttles at them. Given the unintelligent targeting of these boosters, if they are targeted at ships, fighters can deal with them easily. If they are tageted at shuttles or bigger, then the enemy will be able to sponge off the torp on a shuttle of their choice.

5) T-bomb the boosters. Will work if the enemy retreats a little after placing the T-bomb (ballistic targeting very predictable). Will do over stacked boosters, while boosters scatterlaunched can ultimately be taken on different shield if necessary.

5) And finally... shoot down the plasma itself! Four Fs is not that dangerous. Four K/Ds are laughable (if boosters downgraded).

It's just TOO weak. Bottom line is - Drones are easy to kill. Boosters are like drones. There will never be many boosters.


I think you would need a weak form of plasma that does not degrade with distance, or only degrades tremendously slowly. For instance, an adapted Plas-S launcher equivalent could launch an 10-point warhead that stays at 10 points for 50 turns, and runs on a ballistic course until it sees a target at X hexes, whereupon it starts seeking while degrading a bit like a plas-F. You could perhpas have it move slowly.

The key thing would be is that at all times, the object is targeted as if it were plasma.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 06:37 am: Edit

oh another example. These boosters are likely to be late war technology. Enemy will probably have packed fighters. 1 fighter gets to range 8 of a stack of boosters. They all luanch Plas-Fs at the fighter. Fighter HETS and runs, laughing.

If the boosters are not targeted on fighters, well, then the fighters simply move in and kill them, being careful not to be in the boosters FA arcs when the kill is done.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 08:43 am: Edit

Good points. As written, it's of use for base assaults (or better, defence) but not much good elsewhere.

Before the sabot was invented, I proposed an Overdrive boost phase for plasma to make it go speed 64 ballistic for a while, then track its one preassigned target. No good for the DB role, but OK for the classic Gorn/Klink matchup.

FWIW, I've never seen the value of DB anyway. An expensive way to give the opponent some phaser gunnery practice.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 09:53 am: Edit

Actually, the launching ship would move with the first few and have the later ones closely following.

And a fleet would definately fire off a passel of these and follow them in just to soak up fire.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 11:25 am: Edit

William,

Instead of the booster this weapon could be a development of the enveloping plasma torpedo (EPT). Below are some ideas.

It would be a refit of the S tube. The extra energy is used to surround the inner torpedo (two-stage). An F or G torpedo is loaded then the extra energy is added.

Options:
1. Range table: develop a new one or use the standard plasma torpedo table and consider it an R for purposes of range and damage points the outer torpedo can soak up.

2. The whole torpedo can be saboted; the inner torpedo is a standard.

3. Tame boar would be fired as a bolt.

4. The inner torpedo could an enveloping G or shotgun G.

5. The long range torpedo (LRT?) is a refit of an S tube (no change to the SSD). Can it still fire the other types of torpedoes?

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 01:04 pm: Edit

Michael

Yes, I can see the fleet accompanying these things. But then there are secondary issues.
1) Unless your fleet is ramrodded in (i.e. does not manouver) with the ballistic targeting of the boosters, then the ships and boosters will get separated.
2) Drone ships have to use their drone racks to fire drones, which, er, can't fire anything else. Unless you allow these booster-plasma launchers to also fire normal plasma, then the are using up a plas-G/plas-S slot and significantly reducing firepower of the ship. Even if you do say that these booster lanchers can fire a plas-F or a booster, then it is still sacrificing what would probably otherwise be a plas-G/S launcher.
3) Ultimately, becuase these are ballistically targetted, then they will be useless against an enemy fleet, which will find it easy to dodge them. If they are not ballistically targeted, then you can only launch from 35 hexes or less, which means the number you can have in play is severely limited at a time when you would perhaps prefer to have a hot -G/S in the tube instead.

Against bases, with ships accompanying them in - perhaps these might be useful. But even then, numbers are limited - 4 per booster launcher + 2 reloads. So there will never be many.

I would like to see a weapon of more general use, especially as plasma tends to do well against bases anyway, if you limit the number of shuttles the base can use as WWs.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Well, I can see two possibilities to make this thing compliant and available to ships WITHOUT new ssds.

1) The boosters are stored in lieu of shuttles. Say 2 to 4 in place of one shuttle. And the ship would have to pay the equivalent of the "fighter ready box" to get the power runs and deck crew to service the things.

2) It is YET ANOTHER thing that can use the PPT. This would really really limit them. ESPECIALLY if the range is tied to the strength of the PPT (so a R torp PPT could tote it further than a F PPT).


YIS????

By William J Gauthier (Emperorvortia) on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 07:58 pm: Edit

D. Slatter - Thank you for your input, it has showed a major weakness in the design. Originally, I based this weapon on the Type-III drone, so I kept the ATG range of 8 hexes. Plasma Torpedoes are self guiding. How would everyone feel if I expanded the distance for launch to 15 hexes, and the amount of damage it can sustain to 8 or 12?

Any fighter entering the range of 15 would trip the booster and get targeted by the Plasma-F, unless they were specified to ignore targets that small. You could avoid some fighter interference by setting some to target any vessel and some to ignore fighters.

Another option would be to change the weapon to four boxes, each with one booster each, so that all could be held and fired at once. It would not create a cheesy Alpha-F Cruiser because there would still be the 16 impulse myopia.
Of course, to generate any sort of rate of fire, you'd need to be able to reload the racks whilst arming, or maybe you could just keep the rules as is and make sure that vessels have larger numbers of Torps. Drone Bombardment vessels typically have large numbers of Drone Racks, far more non-phaser weapons than are typically allowed. A Fed CAD could launch 7 drones a turn. I don't see any reason why a converted Romulan FireHawk couldn't have 8 or 10 of these Pl-DS.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 09:04 pm: Edit

Best not to reinvent the wheel. If you are really looking for a plasma analogue to DB, steal from the rules to Type III-XX drones liberally. See if you can keep the exceptions small enough that you can say "it uses the III-XX rules with this short list of modifications."

It sounds like this is morphing into a long-ranged plasma for fleet battles or base assaults, which is another critter entirely.

By William J Gauthier (Emperorvortia) on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Well, the funny thing is that is basically what I did, John. I do agree with D.Slatter that because of the slow firing rate of Plasma means that something must be done about that 8 hex tracking range, and it makes sense it would be 15 hexes (the range of a Plasma-F) as they are self-guiding. As for the rest of it, it really depends on how it plays out. I'm open to all ideas.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 01:14 am: Edit

William,

Change the arming cycle so there can be staggered arming. This way after four turns you could be holding four torps ready to go.

I am not sure how this would playtest though.

By William J Gauthier (Emperorvortia) on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 02:17 pm: Edit

What you are saying is, allow arming of more than one torp, but the firing of only one a turn? It's an idea at least.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 02:28 pm: Edit

William,

DB is a small amount of ships launching seeking weapons at a target that is very close in a strategic sense but out of the engagement in a tactical sense (they're so far away that they cannot engage or be engaged if they wanted to be)

I would expect PB to follow suit.

Dave's comments are all in the context of long (but engageable) tactical range.

His point #1 addresses fleets flying in with long range plasma they have launched. this isn't how DB works.

His Point #2, that the PB ships sacrifice G/S firepower is therefore pointless. DB ships are not normally within 10,000 hexes of their target. A plasma analogue wouldn't be either.

PB should sacrifice some firepower, just as a DB ship sacrifices some firepower in that if they were attacked, all they'd have to defend themselves with would be 2-space drones with single-space warheads.

His point #3 only makes sense in a fleet-to-fleet engagement sense.

A typical DB bombardment involves about 1200 spaces of drones launched by 3 ships, which means about 600 III-XX drones. Since plasma is harder to kill, let's cut the number by about 1/2 and say we're talking about around 300 long-range F-torps launched by 3 ships.

You're not going to get that with booster launch racks that hold 4 per rack that have no reloads. DB ships need 4 cargo boxes worth of reloads per ship to do their job.

If you want to mymic DB with PB, the PB ships will need some way of handling sustained fire without giving them the ability to bombard indefinitely. Your boosters fit that bill. You just need the ships to bring them in bulk and cargo boxes allow you to do that.

It also means you have to build custom SSDs and can't use existing ones.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 02:54 pm: Edit

Assume you are shooting at my base/ battle/ star base.

1) Plasma will be a LOT more vulnerable to wild SWAC shuttles and wild PFs (protecting their base) running them out or yoyoing. I would put my swac 15 (12?) hexes behind my base and laugh as the darn plasma wandered by me chasing the wild swac in a pretty (useless) light show.

2) Any turn you don't have enough plasma inbound I would turn on my Active FC and phaser 4 and 3 the darn things to death. P4 are awesome vs plasma. And then I could repostion my SWAC/ wild PFS.

3) If you launched the plasma to all come from one direction (to all hit one shield) the base can weasel EARLY and have it draw your plasma out of endurance. The local fighters and such will be patrolling to kill any bus vehicles that don't release early. And note that weasels DON'T have to go in a straight line.

4) So you will HAVE to target some of them onto the local fighter/ pf squadron. Or they will be hitting them EVERY turn with a ton of phasers.

5) Your bombardment squadron will be nearly helpless against interception/ pursuits if they don't have regular plasma torps. DB ships CAN and do load up with regular drones when they aren't actually making the bombardment mission. So you are back to keeping the regular torps.

6)The way these things would work best is:
a) Follow a huge load in while the base is firing them/ weaseling/ etc.
b) use them to defend minesweepers.
c) if regular ships have them they would be a great lead volley in fleet engagements.

SUGGESTIONS:

1) The only race that REALLY needs the help is the Gorns (the Roms have maulers, the ISC PPD and the Feds Photons and drones).
2) Consider making these things another thing you can do with a PPT. Say the PPT, just as it can move and create ECM can also stabilize a Plasma torp for the endurance of the PPT... OR my suggestion about things in the shuttle bay with a ready rack equivalent.

3) And it is a function of the carronade. Thus the "L" fed ships can still do the bombardment thing.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 10:14 pm: Edit

Michael,

1) As with DB, the plasma could very easily be set up so it is coming in from 3, even 6 directions simultaneously, defeating this tactic.

2) There won't be such a turn. As with DB, the bombardment assault has been set up at distances several orders of magnitude larger than engagement range. The bombardment squadron is launching seeking weapons while moving toward the target at high speed, then high-warping to a different location to start another prong of the assault, creating a tightly focused mass-bombardment.

3) See #1

4) That is certainly a valid point, Something DB has to take into account as well.

5) Try to find the PB squadron when it's thousands of hexes away. Good luck. As with DB, intercept squadrons would be deployed for high-value targets and sometimes they catch the bombardment squadron.

There is a SFB scenario that deals with an intercept group finding a DB squadron. It should be adaptable for a PB squadron.

6) You are thinking in fleet engagement terms, not "DB analogue" terms.

Suggestions
1) This really enhances anybody's base assault ability. Maybe it starts with the Gorns but it's too good not to be reverse-engineered by the other plasma races.

No, the Feds do NOT get PB as well as DB units!

2) Good idea, but thinking on the wrong scale. I have toyed with a "super pseudo" torp that could travel ranges like a III-XX drone (instead of a hardware booster) and could store an F-torp until a pre-ordained moment. The super-pseudo would be a much larger thing than a normal pseudo. Each one would take up 2-4 spaces of cargo by itself.

3) I really don't think it's wise to link 2-stage plasmas and the carronade. The Carronade is a DF function of a F-torp. DB plasma is about as opposite from a carronade or a bolt as you can get.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 10:28 pm: Edit

How is the PB (F-torp with a booster) different from an F-torp warhead on a type-IIIxx drone frame? The issue I am getting at is tech slosh? A booster that can last 100 turns at speed 32 (3200 hexes) seems to be the same as a drone frame. Can an F-torp stay in a stasis canister for 100 turns?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 12:05 am: Edit

Why not, I do not believe a fighter has a limitation on how long it can be held.

By William J Gauthier (Emperorvortia) on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 06:44 pm: Edit

J. Trauger says "It also means you have to build custom SSDs and can't use existing ones. "

Planned on it, actually, and yes, I expect they'll have lots of cargo boxes so they can keep firing.

M. Grafton says "Assume you are shooting at my base/ battle/ star base...."

Michael, you're not really bringing up anything that doesn't already effect Drones. The concept behind any bombardment is just overwhelming force. If you can fire off enough of these suckers, you can overload an enemies defenses. If you can come in alongside the boosters with an attack fleet, you have devastation.

I think the rules, except the 8 hex detection range (which I think would be better at 15), are pretty good as is, and their effectiveness is basically going to come down to how they are mounted on the SSDs. If a Heavy Cruiser can have eight of these launchers, they should be able to keep up a rate of fire of eight every three turns, which I think should be as good as the 21 drones the Feddie DB Cruiser can bust out.

Remember, at long range, the only thing this vessel needs to pay energy for is life support and firing these launchers.

I might also want to reduce the energy cost for extended duration to .5 energy per 10 turns.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 07:28 pm: Edit

Usually they are also paying for max speed toward the enemy.

Here's the problem with a cruiser that has 8 of these things: A cruiser that can pop off 8 F-torps is very powerful in normal combat.

Yet, without some ability to put plasma out there, they're excessively vulnerable.

Suggest there there be an adaptor assemply that's fitted over a standard plasma launcher. The plasma is extracted from the launcher, placed in stasis, and luanched when desired.

If the adaptor only allowed a launcher to create a F-torp, larger launchers would be at a disadvantage but could defend themselves.

Larger launchers could also do 2-turn F-torps for a faster bombardment pace. Over 6 turns, a DD-class ship with 1x G, 2x F could put out 7 plasmas.

By William J Gauthier (Emperorvortia) on Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 01:01 am: Edit

J. Trauger says "Here's the problem with a cruiser that has 8 of these things: A cruiser that can pop off 8 F-torps is very powerful in normal combat. "

But if those 8 F-torps have to travel on a ballistic course for 16 impulses, and then can only track enemies in the FA arc of a ballistic course, then they are very easily avoidable. The only force that needs fear them is a force which is moving head on against another force without any intention of maneuver, which is pretty stupid anyway if you are facing Plasma. With all of it's standard Plasma replaced with Pl-DS, it's counting on other ships for it's defense at close range, because it's certainly not going to have much it can do.

If you think about it, a FireHawk is already capable of creating 8 Plasma-Fs by shotgunning. Sure, that shotgun is restricted in that the shots must all be on different vessels and cannot be held, but the Pl-DS is restricted in that it must be fired from a ballistic course delivery system which cannot launch for 16 impulses.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 04:52 pm: Edit

A firehawk can shotgun, true, but all shotgun submunitions must have different targets. It can't concentrate all 8 on a single ship.

By setting proper release conditions, these can be focused on one ship.

I'm very concerned that players could figure out tactics that would make devestating combat use of such a ship and I'm not sure that a 16-hex latency time is enough.

For example, Firing 4 to one side and 4 to the other side of an incoming opponent, one can bracket them with 4 f-torps to a side or at least have 4 pop near their target.

By William J Gauthier (Emperorvortia) on Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 05:44 pm: Edit

As long as their opponent doesn't Rush past them, Shoot down the boosters, or make sure other valid targets are in the way. This is going to come down to playtesting, but I doubt that it'll be easy to hit all 8 F-Torps on a single ship under these restrictions, and if you do they will be significantly degraded from all the running they did to get there.

Besides that, the number of ships of this type in a fleet would be limited under the Drone Bombardment rules, so you'd never be able to launch 80 Plasma-Fs from the other side of the board at another enemy fleet, for example.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 06:22 pm: Edit

The big issue as I see it is the vulnerability of the booster.

If you have it set to break at range, the F torp will not be very effective. And if it is set to pop close in, a lot of boosters will get killed off by fighters and Phaser 4 fire. Then out comes the weasels.

Even moving speed 32, a base will have 3 TURNS worth of Phaser 4 fire against them. And since there is no close in threat, the base can pump a lot into EW to offset the small targeting modifiers.

I think this is a heck of a good idea, but I don't see how to implement it.

The problem is if they are strung out you can engage them sequentially, while if they clump the tbomb weasel defense is good. So you have to have LOTS of groups seperated in time and space. Don't see how this is possible without creating an uber system. Drones have the advantage of being cheap, being useful at shorter ranges and you can pack a LOT of them into your cargo boxes.

Assume you have a Cruiser sized leader and 2 Destroyer sized Plasma bombardment ships. How many launchers will each have? Firing rate? Endurance of the boosters?

Finally, to arm Plasma you have to spend energy, while drones are energy free. So you will have your ships either moving VERY SLOW while at close strategic ranges to your target or it will take quite a while to pump up the torps...