SPP, not to be an ass or anything, but can't drogues be deployed per hatch on a single bay, and not just 1 per bay?

IE I have a carrier/ship, like a G-CVS/BCV or Z-CVS w/ a tunnel deck and 2 hatches, it can deploy 2 drogues? Yes, Yes I know I can't land/launch shuttles while both hatches are in use.

SPP, on topic. Could disadvantages to the DB plamsa be included to off-set it's hard-to-phaser-kill nature? IE You can use the Special Sensor "Break Drone Lockon" function on the DB Plasma. Maybe it's harder to break the lockon of it, lets say on a 5-6 instead of the normal 3-6 (?, I can't remember). I'd think should be harder as it taking a ton of power to use it, and a 3-turn arming sequence verses a 0 power, easy to launch drone.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Scott Tenhoff:

Uhm, why is asking a legitimate question something where anyone would be considered to be being impolite?

Beyond that, you are quite correct in that the rule does allow one per hatch in a given bay, i.e., a tunnel deck can have two drogues. That was an error on my part in that I stopped at bay because I was hung up on Loren Knight's perceived suggestion of having a small carrier replace all of its fighters with drogues.

As to special sensors breaking the lock-on of launched plasma, I honestly do not see how that is possible. The plasma being carried is just a plasma-F in all ways, it does not (to me) make any sense that its on board fire control would be any different from that of a plasma-F prepared for loading into a fighter. That is my opinion, does not mean that SVC will not go along with the idea.

I would assume that the since ballistic drones and shuttles are immune from this special sensor effect [(G24.225) and (G24.226)], that a plasma "booster" would be as well.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Joe,

What we're talking about is some kind of "booster" that would carry a F-torp as a warhead, giving it comparable distance to a III-XX drone.

The original proposal is for a hardware booster.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Dale McKee:

Posting messages requiring someone to explain how he would win with a plasma force comes across very much (however much you may not have intended such) as an effort to block that person's input. Given that you only addressed that to me, and only after I took the time to point out problems that no one had addressed, it comes across as attempting to stifle discussion. In effect, "if you are not supportive of this idea, you should not be allowed to speak". Bear in mind that it is a print medium and people often read things that are not intended.

As to tactics, I have won with plasma ships in fleet battles. I have stated so before. My tactics are not necessarily those that would please other players (I do not necessarily rely on the plasma torpedoes to win), but I am not given to playing as other players play. I am quite content to "waste time" to set up a decisive clash.

I have NEVER led a fleet that consisted of a DN and ten war cruisers. I have, in fact, never led a fleet that had more than three war cruisers in it (stock war cruisers and often a war cruiser leader, not talking about carriers, escorts, PF tenders, scouts, etc.). I tremendously dislike such fleets because they are not really accurate presentations of what is going on. I have never had the joy of fighting a battle where every non-fighter/PF disruptor was a range 30 disruptor. I am not lazy enough (this is my view and opinion of such, others I am sure do not consider it lazy) to fight a fleet battle with nothing but war cruisers (or seven war cruisers and three F6s). My experience with fleet battles tends more towards the "Dreadnought, Cruiser Squadron, Special Squadron, Frigate Squadron, Support Ship" deployment pattern. (The "Battle Group" addition of another ship pre-dates my most active playing period.) I have fought battles where my fleet consisted of a DN, a cruiser squadron, and two frigate squadrons. The "Special Squadron" (in my deployment pattern) is sometimes a war cruiser squadron (in which case the Cruiser Squadron is usually a heavy cruiser squadron), but it is most often a Carrier Group (whether Strike Carrier and escorts or War Cruiser Carrier and escorts), although (as noted) it is sometimes a second frigate squadron (which does mean that it might be destroyers). The Frigate Squadron is either a frigate squadron, or a destroyer squadron. But I have ALWAYS had a squadron of Size Class 4 ships (and sometimes two of them) in every fleet battle I have ever participated in.

I have never matched ten Gorn Heavy Destroyers (or ten Romulan Sparrowhawks) and a Gorn (Romulan) Dreadnought against ten Klingon D5s (or ten Federation NCLs) and a Dreadnought. Although, yes, I have sometimes had an F6 (or a Federation Battle Frigate) among my "frigate" squadron.

Every "Fleet" battle or "Task Force" battle I have ever fought was with mixed ships. The only times I fought "pure" battles were "squadron sized" engagements (three ships). To me part of the fleet/task force battle is having to marshal the different capabilities of the ships, and work with the liabilities, not starting with a fleet where every ship (except maybe the flagship) has the same energy allocation on Turn #1, starts with the same turn mode, and the same shields, and etc.

I have very rarely fought with pure hellbore ships (I do not like them, the hellbore is just too tactically lazy in my opinion), restricting myself to those hellbores found on command ships, Stinger-H fighters, and bases. And, yes, I do not pass up the hellbores found on command ships, Stinger-Hs, and bases, so you can call me a hypocrite if you like, but I can claim the destruction of a Lyran CWBp+ by a Hydran Lancer in a one-on-one (duel) fight.

I have done one-on-one duels with DNs, and have fought a fleet battle or two where the "Frigate Squadron" was in fact three police ships. (Although those circumstances were the use of Hydran Gendarmes and Federation Police Cutters. I do not count the Kzinti Police Corvette, Gorn Police Frigate, Lyran or LDR Military Police, Tholian Police Corvette, or Romulan Snipe-As in that category, but treat them all as frigates.)

So I just do not, and cannot, take seriously complaints about Klingon D5 Fleets or any fleet battle where every disruptor is 30 hexes range. Just as I am not that wild about people trying o convert every phaser-2 in the Klingon, Lyran, or Hydran fleets to phaser-1s, or giving other races phaser-G fighters.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 05:50 pm: Edit

I will add that I have even fought in a "Battle-Tug Free For All", and did my best NOT to take the new Kzinti Combat Tug because I knew too much about drones compared to the other members of my then gaming group (I wound up drawing it randomly and having the other members refuse to let me decline taking it . . . I wonder if they truly realized that I was not trying to pull a fast one and stick someone with a weak ship). And, yes, that ended in a slaughter of the other battle-tugs. Type-D drone racks are incredibly powerful because as you are fighting, you can always be reloading a magazine, or emptying a magazine of one type of drone to put in another type that is more appropriate to your next target, but it does not reduce your launch rate to do that, and the ADDs and extra magazine spaces allow considerable damage redundancy which also helps you keep launching drones even after your ship is heavily damaged. The battle-tug free-for-all was one of the few times in my life (but not the only time) that it came down to desperate die rolls to gain lock-on with my badly damaged sensor track and my last few points of power to then launch the last wave of drones that destroyed my final opponent (who was down to a phaser or two and a few points of power, and was a Gorn Battle-Tug).

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 09:33 pm: Edit

SPP: I really wasn't trying to muzzle you there. Sorry it came off that way.

I was really more thinking of the Feds than the Klingons - playing in a Rom vs. Fed campaign now, and while the ROMS can cloak to avoid the prox shot, the Gorns would have no such option.

Of course I know historically they did not fight the Feds (much). But for a Fed, *every* photon is a range-30 photon.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 10:25 pm: Edit

John T,

I suppose I haven't been clear on my concern which is: the "booster" will be considered giving drone technology to plasma races.

If SPP and SVC don't think it is then no problem.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 11:41 pm: Edit

That's why I think 'bombardment plasma' should be launcher-based.....putting a plasma ANYTHING on something resembling a drone makes me very, very nervous.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 01:45 am: Edit

I was on very limited time and wanted to toss out the thought I had. I didn't research it entirely nor did I have time to put down my complete thought. Then I didn't get back to it.

The carrier replacing fighters with drogues idea lacked what I had in mind which was that it would be a ship conversion. That is, a converted carrier specialized in that duty. As such it would be most likely only small carriers and more likely only auxillary carriers at that.
Still, I do realize that the launch rate would be poor but I figured that others would challenge or add to the idea. As things stood there seemed to be a need for ideas of other directions.

Making it a drogue option still has some interesting tactical uses for ships carrying one drogue and a couple reloads. SUch a weapon could be used in the opening movements of a battle to interesting effect.

Anyway, if a drogue option isn't viable then shrug.

I'll think more on this. As it stands it seems like a heavilly scaled down fighter with a plasma-F and the basic guidence system of a Type-III DB drone. I can't see this working on a drone (well, maybe type-H... hence drogue deployment) and it also seems to me that the booster would need to be recoverable. A type-H frame seems expensive and unwieldly while a full fighter take too much room and isn't deployable in enough numbers. I think that a type-H frame might be too tough too. A type-H takes more damage than a full shuttle. Perhaps this 'booster' cannot have they typical drone style of built-in evasion that drones have and so it take much less damage to kill. I was thinking that the plasma booster shouldn't take more than six points to kill. I don't know, just seems that the only time you'll be shooting at the booster is at ranges greater than eight. It's a pretty tough thing to do to kill a wave of Type-IV drones (also six to kill...usually) at ranges outside of three. Six to kill the booster is pretty tough.

Just what would a plasma bombardment look like. 100 plasmas like with drones? I would think that 24 would be the basic number and 36 would be a very heavy strike. Twelve is a light strike.

Then another thought is that the entire system, launch mechanism, booster, tactics, the works are totally new to SFB and unique. Indeed, the Gorn and Romulan might could have totally different systems to accomplish the same basic goal. I kinda like the sound of that. A new ship, and new weapon, and new seeking weapon. All new.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 01:46 am: Edit

Sorry, I know I'm babbling a lot in that previous post.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 10:54 am: Edit

Whatever this thing would be, it would not be a drone in any way, shape, or form.

If you could mount a plasma-F on a drone, then why not a type-IV drone on a drone? Why not a photon drone or a disruptor drone?

The SMALLEST (emphasis, not shouting) thing that can currently carry a plasma torpedo AND MOVE (emphasis, not shouting) right now is a shuttle (fighter), and the shuttle situation creates several caveats in the design process.

If a G-I fighter can hold a plasma-F ready for launch indefinitely, why can't a "plasma booster"? The problem being that the technology exists to hold the plasma-F on the fighter, and there is no size-one fighter that holds two plasma-Fs. There are, however, things smaller than fighters that not only hold multiple plasma-Fs, but are capable of generating them independently, they simply cannot move.

Large (three torpedoes) and small (one torpedo) captor mines are fitted with plasma-Fs, as are Def Sats (two torpedoes, plus two phaser-2s and two phaser-3s). None of these are mobile however. The Small captor takes four damage points to destroy, and two cargo points to transport. The large Captor takes six damage points to destroy and four cargo points to transport. The Def Sat takes 25 damage points to destroy and ten cargo points to transport. A G-I fighter takes eight damage points to destroy, and 25 cargo points to transport. The captor mines and DefSats are all able to generate their own plasma torpedoes, the fighter is only able to carry a plasma torpedo. All of them have built in Electronic warfare (the fighter and Def Sat both have two points of ECM and two points of ECCM, the Large and Small Captor mines have three points of ECCM, and arguably some form of built-in ECM which makes them difficult for non-minesweepers to target).

Fighters cannot generate plasma torpedoes (but they can move).

Whatever a "booster" is, if it is in fact a "round of ammunition" that can be loaded, then you are running into the problem of the existing fighter. The engine to move it as established by fighters is going to be BIG (a lot bigger than a drone, although obviously far smaller than that found on the smallest ship). The life support systems that you do not need (no pilot) are not going to save you that much of the mass and power of what is going to amount to a shuttle frame (it cannot be a mine or Def Sat frame because those do not have engines to move them at speeds the boosters operate).

Further, if this was a small as a drone, there would be no rational reason why it could not be mounted on fighter launch rails or placed in plasma-D racks. Even if you argued that you had no intention of doing that, you have to consider that if this was allowed future players would insist that they could in fact do this, even if they were required to "pair" the plasma-D rails of the fighters to do it (not unlike a fighter with paired rails to carry a type-IV drone which has the same number of damage points as the proposed booster and if the designer can just get us to agree that it is the size of a drone . . .).

So this is NOT (emphasis of my, I say again, "my", opinion, not shouting) going to be the size of a drone. There are not going to be type-I (or even type-IV) drones carrying photon torpedoes or disruptors (not going to open that window). Saying the plasma booster is the size of a drone would open up a can of worms that is not going to be closed by saying "well, just allow plasma-F boosters to be the size of drones and do not allow them to be used on any other launch platforms or allow other races to mount their own heavy weapons on drones".

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 11:01 am: Edit

Half shuttle size... A plasma Hopper!!!


(ducks and runs like hellllllllll)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 01:02 pm: Edit

I wonder if this couldn't be some device that is loaded into a plasma torpedo launcher of Type-G or larger. First, that would eliminate everything having to do with drones and fighters.

Second, perhaps consider it a self propelled canister that has a ATG-like targeting systems. The booster is of a specific range. Say 100 hexes? Heck even 30 hexes and eliminate the tame bore thing altogether.

So then what you do is dump tons of energy into this thing (which is available because you are far from the target). First you shotgun load the torp then add on energy point for the booster for each F-Torp. You could even put a limit on the available canisters making them a supply item you buy individually or in bulk (in bulk when you by the sub-class of ship or the PlasB package or refit).

The rule as a package you refit a number of plasma launchers on a ship with a Plasma Bombardment package. This is a package that can be added or removed in a number of hours (I.e., between scenarios). This gives the ship the ability to use its plasma launchers to launch Bombardment Plasma. Canisters cost about the same as a Type-1 fast drone. Range is something that can be worked out. Romulans can more easilly work with shorter ranges due to cloak to a three turn range wouldn't hurt much. This wouldn't work so good for Gorns. Maybe twenty five turns then?

The rule as a refit would create a new sub-class of ship as a plasma bombardment unit only (ship conversion). It has limited booster supplies on the order of about half a DB ship. It still uses a refitted plasma launcher and still loads them as above; launcher loaded a shotgun then add on point per resulting pl-F to kickstart the booster canister containment system. It is self propelled and self guiding just like a DB drone, and is destroyed by the release of the plasma. Booster Canisters are loaded the first turn of arming and except for accounting the supply the process is subsumed in the loading of the launcher.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 02:36 pm: Edit

How 'bout this to make everybody happy.

The "booster" is a "super pseudo" that contains a device which maintains the pseudo and holds a one-shot stasis cannister.

It is therefore not any kind of drone.

The super-peusdo can and does travel at sabot speeds. The super-pseudo has a "warhead strength" of 5 for purposes of destroying it.

When the super-pseudo warhead strength reaches 0, it releases the F-torp and F-torp attempts to locate a target according to programmed release instructions.

At any point, the super-pseudo can cease to maintain itself. This must be announced. Once the super-pseudo ceases to maintain itself, it can't start again. The Super-pseudo degrades as if it were a K-torp launched at a ship ragardless of actual target. The impulse where the super-pseudo announces ceasing self-maintenance is considered the impulse of launch for this and only this purpose.

A functionally infinite amount of pseudos take up negigable space on a ship. A super-pseudo would take up at least 2 spaces of cargo each (same size as a III-XX drone). The PB ship is assumed to have the standard 4 cargo boxes that a DB ship has.

Since a F-torp is better than a III-XX drone for all the reasons SPP laid out a few days ago, the super-pseudo would take up more space based on how much better a F-torp would be for bombardment. 4 spaces if considered twice as good, 6 if three times and so forth.

The F-torps would be generated using a plasma ship's regular launchers. (For various technobabble reasons, ISC lateral F-torps do not qualify as "normal launchers")

Each standard plasma launcher on a ship is replaced with a special plasma bombardment launcher. (A R-torp is replaced by 2 PB launchers) These launchers are heavily converted G-torps. They can arm F-torps either by the standard 1-1-3 cycle or the 2-turn F-torp cycle (2+2 +2 reserve power) The PB launchers canot arm a G-torp, shotgun or enveloping torpedo. Only F-torps.

The PB launchers can launch F-torps without the super-pseudo if they choose to. They are normal F-torps. PB launchers, being based on G-torps cannot carronade.

PB launchers holding F-torps must pay 1 pts per turn to do so.

By Jim Cummins (Jimcummins) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 03:29 pm: Edit

Why not use a half sized shuttle,

As SPP said it won't need a cockpit and life support, I am assuming a smaller control system as it won't need the versatility of a fighter, Just a Type III-XX drone targeting capability. Maybe even a smaller drive and fuel system since it would generally be moving at a constant speed, not requiring the engineering to survive a fighters normal antics. It already has the range as fighters can react off a base in F&E. As a bonus you could program them to withdraw after the attack run and head to a destination point for retrieval. Major cost savings for any that survive.

The major drawback I can see is that you would need to task a carrier to fly out with a double squadron ( 2 per fighter, maybe even replacing the admin shuttle spaces to add to the bombardment, and the escorts could carry some as well) of these things launch them, then skedaddle back behind the lines. At least if the carrier gets caught in the act it does have it escorts to help it run away.

And wishing all of you to the south a Happy Thanksgiving.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

Uhmmm . . . well, if you do what you are proposing, you may as well declare all existing deep space and orbital bases obsolete and eliminate them from the game.

Bombardment drones can be a pain to such a base, but they are (as I have noted) far easier to defend against than sudden masses of plasma.

Put yourself in a starbase (we will assume a Gorn one), and assume that a D6D's entire load of type-IIIXXF drones is arriving during the current 32 impulses (a total of 154 drones requiring, assuming no armor, 616 damage points to destroy). Even without a minefield, you can destroy some of them with your available T-bombs (at least 12, leaving 142), since the drones could not be massed (or the T-bombs would have gotten more of them), that means the three plasma-D racks will destroy another 12 (130 remaining). The 12 phaser-4s (rotating base and again the spread out nature of the drones to avoid heavy losses to the T-bombs) will nail another 12 (118 remaining). The Six plasma-Fs will take out six (112 remaining), and the six plasma-Rs launched in shot gun mode will take out another 30 (82 remaining). The 12 admin shuttles and six phaser-3s will, between them, kill another 12 (70 remaining), and the 12 tractor beams will snag a dozen (58 remaining). Almost two thirds of the drones are stopped WITHOUT using Fighters, PFs, or the systems in the modules for those units or using special sensors to break lock-ons, or with any support from other units.

Now, assume half that number (72) of plasma-Fs being released at 13 hexes range from a Federation Starbase. The Phaser-4s kill 12 of them, the phaser-Gs and Admin shuttles kill eight of them, the remaining 52 cannot be stopped by any of the systems on the base (ADDS, Drones, Photon Torpedoes, T-bombs, even the Special Sensors have no effect on plasma torpedoes).

Now, note that the plasmas were launched at a range where they only do five points of damage per torpedo, which made killing as many as were killed possible (requiring only ten points of phaser damage), and more than halves the amount of damage the suriviving ones would do compared to the surviving drones, but this is countered by the fact that they did not need to be spread out to avoid damage from the T-bombs and could all strike a single shield. Further note that normally the T-bombs would take out a lot more of the drones in such a crowded attack. But it means that the plasmas are scoring (despite a strength of only five points per warhead at impact) a total of 260 points of warhead on a single shield. If they released at range 12 the damage MORE THAN DOUBLES (emphasis) because not only do the warheads that hit score ten points rather than five points, but more of them will get through because they are harder to kill (twenty points of phaser damage to destroy as opposed to ten points).

If the Federation Starbase was defending against the drones: The drone racks, operating as type-E racks, destroy 24 drones. The Phaser-4s destroy 12 drones. The Photon Torpedoes [with ECCM to counter that they are firing at drones (FD1.52)] destroy 12 drones, the phaser-Gs and admin shuttle phaser-3s destroy 16 drones, the T-bombs destroy 12 drones, and the tractors grab 12 drones, leaving 66, some number of which are destroyed by the ADDs (which will fire about 60 total shots, i.e., six shots, four impulses to change to another magazine, then six shots, repeat, again due to the drones having to be spread out to avoid easy mass destruction by T-bombs), probably about 40, leaving just 26 drones to strike the shields, or an average of about 52 points of damage per shield.

Any of these bases adding fighters or PFs can easily fend of such a drone bombardment with its own assets. Plasmas are a whole 'nother ball of wax that you have to be very careful about. You have to give serious thought to have fixed installations are going to defend themselves against something that literally nothing is currently designed to defend against. Ships can opt for speed, but fixed installations have to pretty much sit and take it, and a there is a big difference between four points of damage to stop the 12 points of damage from a type-IIIXX drone, and that four points of damage only reducing the strength of a close range plasma-F from 20 points down to 18 points.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 04:33 pm: Edit

First let me apologize that I didn't make clear in what amounted to a totally new proposal that some factors of previous proposals apply, such as reduced damage to destroy while in boosted mode.

But even without that 72 striking the base in the space of a single turn would be a huge effort, greater than the effort into a DB mission. This is because the proposal suggested using existing hulls and either temporarily or permanently (depending on rule testing) and converting them with the Plasma Bombardment (PB) package. I thought this implied that you take a ship and apply, in effect, the PB attributes to the existing plasma launchers. This means that plasma waves would come in the same order than they would from existing plasma ships.

For example, apply the PB refit to a Romulan KRB. First, there is a BPV cost for the conversion. Then you apply the PB refit to the two plasma S's. This ship have two F-Plasmas and I suppose you could allow them to be modified too (firing only one). Anyway, the KRPB ship could launch six Boosted Plasma's per three turns (eight per three if you allow Pl-F launchers in on the rule). To build up 72 would take would require 12 turns and a matching speed toward the base starting within 100 hexes. I suspect the speed would be 32 but perhaps the boosters move slower than plasma torpedoes; perhaps 16? To build up 72 by adding up the number of launchers would be 12 KRPB for one turn launch, six for two turn launches (putting the ships within tactical weapons range).

Things like the maximum launch range for the booster and the booster speed are, at this point, variable for testing.

So the way the proposal was written the most Plasmas in a single wave would be a assault ship or DN conversion with a Pl-R and two Pl-S which would yield a wave of 11 plasma-F's every fourth turn (220 points of plasma = 440 to kill). Three such ship could keep up a sustained wave (for what might be 700 BPV or more). Subtract those plasmas shot down by weapons fire at long range while in Boosted phase. Ph-4's could be taking Boosted plasmas out well before they can release their sub-munitions. (I'm still talking four points to kill a boosted plasma.)

The cost of the wave-only for a scenario should be near the cost of the launching ships.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Loren,

The problem is that the ships can carry on the bombardment indefinitely and with limited or no reprisal.

IMHO there must be component introduced that limits the ability to bombard or the system is too good and, as SPP says, you might as well eliminate bases altogether. The most common way known is an ammunition limit.

I'd prefer to find a mechanism that spreads the plasmas out because the problem is the intensity of the bombardment. Even half of a 72-point torp bombardment would be hard for a base to handle, which means that the bombardment group does not need to get anywhere near the base with speed-16 boosters.

OTOH, if you can't group the plasmas, they get easier to deal with.

Say the long range effect *requires* the sabot refit--and the boosters move at sabot speed. Even launching 2-turn F-torps, bombardment waves come 18 hexes apart, possibly 27. No matter what you do, the separation cannot drop below 9 hexes apart simply because ships can't go sabot speed.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 06:06 pm: Edit

John, I did limit the number of canisters to about half of a DB ship so eventually they can no longer launch PB canisters. Then they can not launch even regular plasma until they de-fit their tubes. In the case of the rule requiring perminant conversion to a sub-class hull then that basic defense is what the Pl-F's are for unless you allow Pl-F to be converted to PB but the above is a good reason to not. This also avoids problems with fighter, PF's etc, having this ability. Only allowing heavy plasma launchers to be converted and regulating it with launcher size will keep things balanced.

The mechanism I proposed does spread plasmas out but also groups them enough to pose a threat and perhaps even succeed it damaging and/or destryng the target.

I think speed 32 would be very fast and speed 16 accually workable. Sabot, IMO, is too fast and unnecesary.

I don't think we want a BATTS facing more than eight Pl-F's every turn. I have the separation much wider that you propose but a somewhat challenging group size. Remember, you can pick them off at long range but not all of them. The remainder is something you have to face as full plasma-F's.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Does every race need drone bombardment capability? What about the Hydrans and Lyrans and Andros and Tholians and Seltorians and LDR? Think of the trashcans...
Must every little race have it's own country?
Must every weapon system be able to reach 3200 hexes?

If the Gorns or whoever absolutely positively NEED to launch a drone bombardment mission and can't get an ally to do it for them. Well, that's what orion mercenaries EXIST for IMAO.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 06:37 pm: Edit

That is certainly the core question. On one hand if the answer to all those questions is no then you do nothing. OK, that side is done. If the answer to any of those questions is yes or yes-in-part then you explore proposals.

So the natural assumption due to the very existance of this thread is yes or yes-in-part.

Also, this isn't giving DB to every race it is however changing a core dynamic of the SFU. Right now some races without DB still have access to DB through an ally. The ISC and the Hydrans are the only one with pretty much no access and the Romulans lose what little they had completely when cut off from the Klingons.

Of course no one is proposing 3200 hex weapons here... I don't think anyway.

I must admit that if the Romulans (or whoever) can hire DB Orions in F&E then there is no need for additional rules.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Loren,

What you're talking about isn't The same sort of thing as DB. Ships doing your stuff would have to act under a ship's command limits. DB doesn't.


Doug,
You have a very good point. Unfortunately, the SCS went from a kzinti-only thing to an everybody-thing. As a result. most racial or regional advantages get democratized sooner or later. RE: the ECP.

(As an aside, I'm waiting for the non-seeking weapon races to get their own ECM widget)

DB effectively gives a drone-using fleet an extra three ship's worth of attack power outside the normal comand limits and is especially effective against a stationary target. Does plasma perform so well in base attacks that DB merely evens the playing field?

I don't consider the ability to "hire out" to be an effective answer. Orions operating in or near plasma races are by definition limited in the amount of non-redgional tech they have available.

Anyway, no race would bank on Orion availablility and leave it at that. The orion price for help will do nothing but go up the more reliant on bombardment a government becomes. The government must take control of the capability if only for its own security.

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 07:04 pm: Edit

I think that the gorns are the ones to benifit the most from PB in that Roms have an advantage of being able to come up from cloak to take on a base. And the fact that they have more ships with Pl-R's.

"Historically" the Gorns can use Fed allies or even Orion mercs, but what about a campaign were Feds aren't available? what if the Gorns decide to not hire mercs? you can't always trust that the pirates will stay bought.

This could aslo be applied to the Roms too. What if they can't hire Orions for what ever reason? Though IMHO the cloak really negates the need for PB for Roms, but it becomes hard to explain how only Gorns and ISC would get PB but Roms don't.


Hydrans already have their own version. Its called the Hellbore.

Lyrans do it differently via ESG.

Andros? Dom at 27, correction 3 hexes.

Tholians are happy in their web. Besides, once they get WC, they can use a variation of the Lyrans sheild and close.

LDR? See above and fear the P-G. though they don't have a big enough navy to take on many bases.

WYN? They really don't have much need even with the Fish ships to take on bases. Besides, they have an OP cartel on call.

Did I mis anybody in the Alpha Quadrent?

The ISC does have the PPD and if they can get the max number in a fleet, it will make short work of a base, so I would argue that they may need to have a PB restriction somehow.

But the Gorns are at a disadvantage IMHO when it come to base assualts in the opening phase.

And that is what we are really talking about here. Bombardment is to both soften the target and to assist in allowing the main force to close on the base with very little damage taken.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 09:12 pm: Edit

The ESG is only a help in closing with a base.

the Lyran 4-ESG ships mean a lyran force can blast through a minefield quickly, but the ESG is the sort of weapon that makes anything besides a stack formation very fratricidal.

Does ESG advantage = DB advantage for a klink, WYN (fish) or Zinti? I do't think the WYN "on call" OP cartel is all that happy with them, having been bounced out of their cluster bases. Even though they were let back in eventually.

Is there something about disruptor/drone that makes them especially weak at base busting? If not, DB is a comparative advantage.

The tholian web caster advantage seems like it should at least equal the advantage drone races get with DB, so I wouldn't worry about them, and base-busting isn't a huge priority for them anyway.

Does having the cloak or a comparative lot of PPDs give the Roms and ISC enough of an edge compared to gorns that PB should be their exclusive domain?

By jack huskey (Plasmax) on Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 08:08 pm: Edit

I think that plasa fighters will fill any "plasma bombardment" niche that anyone may be looking for. You launch them from within the same strategic hex, they travel towards the planet at speed 12 or 15 or with packs 24 or 30 then at range 10 from the planet, release a "significant" ammount of plasma, het and return to mamma by Acceleration. For whatever reason mamma didn't come into this fight, we'll never know. I just don't see enough of a diffrence between a speed 24 Plas Bombardment canister and a speed 24 plasma torpedo fighter. I believe it to be a "distinction, without a diffrence". Anything bad that could happen to the speed 24 PB canister during the "cruise" phase could also happen to the speed 24 G-II/packed. The only diffrence being that if nothing goes wrong between moment of launch and moment of release of plasma, the G-II comes back at no cost.