It seems to me that a combination of Loren's and John's ideas might work.

You take a G, S, or R launcher and modify it to a GB, SB, or RB. With this refit it can operate in 3 modes.

1. Normal plasma F
2. Normal Shotgun
3. Bombardment shotgun. As a bombardment shotgun it makes one less plasma F than normal. Each individual torpedo is encased in a Bombardment Pseudo during the turn of launch (noted during EA). The Bombardment Pseudo can be set to any speed just like a normal pseudo but has a maximum range or 100 hexes or 5 turns whichever is first. At any point up to its maximum range the Pseudo can be set to release the Plasma F. If the plasma Fs are not loaded into Bombardment Pseudos during the EA of that turn they can be fired normally.

The following parameters would need to be determined by play testing and/or logic:

1. # of Bombardment Pseudos allowed on the ship
2. Max range and endurance

Comment: This proposal uses only plasma technology so we avoid the problems of trying to explain such a unique use of drone or fighter technology.

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 11:15 am: Edit

To make the Pseudo Bombardment Plasma to work without giving the attacker an unfair massive phaser sponge wouldn't it have to be modified to take less damage then its base type?

As it is, it takes 6 points of phaser damage to destroy a type III-XX drone. Even if you modify the PBP to the same amount of damage, that will be 12 points of phaser damage because of (FP1.611).


And I thought all Plasmas had a speed of 32? I can't see making the PBP have a dial a speed function with out opening the tech creep can.

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 11:25 am: Edit

Another limit I see on using a Bombardment Shotgun is (FP7.23)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 12:34 pm: Edit

In regards bombarding a planet (no, I am not trying to squelch, I am trying to do due diligence in pointing out overlooked rules when they appear).

If you release a plasma-F ten hexes from a planet it will usually do precisely one (1) points of damage. The problem is that entering the atmosphere of your typical target planet uses up five hexes of range (P2.852), and it does not impact until the following turn (P2.8531). If you launched it from nine or eight hexes range it would only do five points of damage. From seven or six hexes range it will do ten points. From five hexes range or less it would do 15 points.

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 12:44 pm: Edit

2 Points of Clarification and Correction:

Bombardment Launchers: The refit to convert a launcher to a Bombardment launcher is basically reconfiguring the launcher so that it is able to place the Plasma-Fs inside of the Bombardment Pseudos. This is why they make one less torpedo.

Bombardment Pseudo: I am thinking that this is a development of an ECM Plasma. The differences would be: The ECM generator has been replaced with a stasis box, the endurance (96imp(Y168), 128imp(Y180)) may need to be tweaked and it can only be launched on a ballistic course. The similarities would be 6 damage to destroy and dial a speed.

FP7.23 would be limiting but only slightly. If necessary this can be balanced by tweaking the playtest variables that I have stated.

Two more playtest variables (continued from my above post):

3. Amount of damage to destroy the Bombardment Pseudo. I assumed 6 to match the ECM plasma but 4 could be argued if needed. Although this would have to be damage that is actually able to harm a plasma (phaser, asteroid).

4. Should it be able to have the option to seek normally so that it would be more useful in combat?

Comment: It could be argued that holding a stasis box is actually easier than emitting ECM so if this thing is technically infeasible it would be due to the size of the Plasma F not the energy required to hold it.

The name for this could simply be Bombardment Plasma. The fact that a Pseudo is used in the process would only be the technobabble explanation.

By William J Gauthier (Emperorvortia) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 01:00 pm: Edit

I'm liking the idea of a using a Shotgun variation. How about, going off of my original idea with boosters, the launcher is a variant G, S, or R Torp Launcher, which all the resulting shots from a shotgun held in stasis before being placed in the boosters. The Launcher modified as a Bombardment Launcher cannot be fired as a standard Launcher, it can only shotgun and have the resulting Fs placed in stasis to be placed on boosters. I'll work on editing my previously existing rules for this and see how everyone feels.

I think that protests of unbalance, at least with my original concept, are unfounded. 8 Plasma-Fs (160 damage at pointblank range) off a Heavy Cruiser is comparable to the 18 Type-IIIXX Torpedoes coming off of a Drone Bombardment Cruiser (216 potential damage). With only 8 boosters, there is plenty of time for the target to defend itself against the weaker boosters before they launch the Plasma-Torpedoes, and once released, they will likely not impact until their damage is significantly degraded.

If a base is targeted by three Plasma-Bombardment Heavy Cruisers, for an attack by 24 boosters every three turns, 12 Ph-4s should be more than capable of taking down a fourth of those before they even release. If the Starbase has it's fighters out in defense, I think it's doubtful that any of those 24 boosters would get through, at least not without the first wave being entirely dedicated to wiping out the Fighters.

Now, those advocating a Pseudo-Torp variation, I feel like that is heading in the wrong direction. On the one hand, standard launchers only have a single PPT. If this were to rely entirely on PPTs, then it would either severely limit the number of shots possible, or would require increasing the number of PPTs per launcher, leading to a slippery slope whereby individuals would argue in favor of more PPTs for any launcher. On the other hand, a PPT is far more durable than my idea for a booster, and while I've agreed that I think I need to make my boosters a little more durable I don't want them approaching the levels of the more powerful fighters.

Another change I'm thinking of is either altering the distance of release again or making it set by the launcher at time of launch. The closer you release, the more damage you do, but the more likely the booster will be destroyed prior to launch.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 03:50 pm: Edit

William, the only difference in what I suggested and what you posted is that you have an extra step of placing the Pl-F's in stasis and put on the boosters.

With what I suggested that is all done in the modified plasma launcher. That is, the booster rack/mechanism is added to the launcher and the booster itself has the stasis chamber for the Pl-F's. That's what the extra point of power was for.


John T.
I don't think that this has to be part of a command limited fleet but it could be. A D6D can perform DB or it can be part of an S8 fleet. I think PB might have a couple of its own rules but in general the ship bombards from a long distance. I know I mentioned 100 hexes but that is not written in stone. If it is needed to function like DB the booster range can be extended to whatever.

The point I'd like to make that makes this balanced is that with a D6D you get a fairly heavy launch rate. Waves of drones separated by reload times but the ship maneuvers in such a way the waves are heavy and sustained. But as I proposed it the PB unit puts out smaller waves of more powerful units with a wider separation between waves. It also means that you don't have to create a new class of ship but that many ships provide a useful plateform for temporary conversion.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 04:13 pm: Edit

William J Gauthier:

If the plasma boosters are set to release at ten hexes range and require six points to destroy, that means the last chance a phaser-4 has to kill the booster is at range 11. At range 11 a dozen phaser-4s will kill an average of four of your 24 boosters, leaving 20 boosters releasing plasmas that will hit for 15 points of damage each, or 300 points of damage. All of which can be targeted on one shield because, as noted, T-bombs do not affect plasma.

Eight plasma-Fs are not comparable to 18 type-III bombardment drones because it takes 72 points of damage to stop 18 bombardment drones, and as noted there are other defenses that can be used versus bombardment drones (T-bombs, plasma-Ds/type-VI drones, and tractors) that can be used against bombardment drones that are not available to stop the plasmas. Eight plasma-Fs set to release at 11 hexes range would require 160 points of damage to stop, all of which must be phaser damage. The upshot is that if these are used in support of an attack on the base, the base is dead because to protect itself from bombardment plasma it must employ virtually every weapon it has to kill the boosters at longer ranges. At six points of damage to kill a booster, the base would have to launch two plasma-Ds to kill one booster before it could release, while one plasma-D would suffice to kill a type-IIIXX drone.

You can wait until the bombardment drones are at near pointblank range before you fire at them, which makes killing them a lot easier, and you can kill bombardment drones with almost any weapon (there are very few weapons that do not have an effect on a drone), but the greater the range a plasma can be launched from, the harder it will be to kill the boosters, requiring an ever larger committment in the number of weapons dedicated to trying to stop the boosters, resulting in fewer weapons for any other function, resulting in dead base.

It is not just a matter of comparing warheads (this many plasma-Fs does that much damage compared to this many bombardment drones). You also have to consider the defenses, and the ranges at which those defenses can be used. Eighteen bombardment drones at range one are a lot easier to kill (72 points of damage) than eight plasma boosters at range 11 (48 points of damage). As noted, the dozen phaser-4s will auto-kill a dozen of the drones, but will only kill an average of four of the boosters. The remaining six drones could be tractored or hit with phaser-3s or any of a number of other defenses, but phaser-3s are unlikely to stop even one additional booster at 11 hexes range and four plasma-Fs will inflict 60 points of damage when released at range ten. flatly, eight of the 18 drones would have been annihilated by the plasma-D launchers on a one for one basis (assuming just two of the racks are in position to launch), and the counter plasma-Ds could begin launching (one per impulse) when the drones were 24 hexes away (assuming fast drones), making their intercepts at range 12 (five points of damage). The phaser-4s could fire as phaser-1s to save power to finish off the drones, and the plasma-Fs, and plasma-Rs would remain available to launch at any encroaching ships. Generating the 48 points of damage needed to kill the boosters at range eleven is a different ball of wax for a plasma base, requiring a far larger percentage of its fire power compared to that needed to deal with a bombardment drones. Stopping your plasma bombardment by a drone armed starbase would simply not be that much of a problem because they are able to intercept the boosters at longer range from normal assets (a shatter-pack) Obviously a Seltorian, Lyran, Andromedan, or Hydran starbase would be the most terrified of this type of bombardment (no drones, no plasma-Ds) as well as a Tholian starbase that was not able to get its webs up.

By Joseph Riggs (Junior) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 04:36 pm: Edit

If the Hydran fighters don't get wiped out by a wave specifically targeting them, then they have a weapon uniquely suited to plasma defense - i.e. the Phaser-G. Each fighter acting in a plasma defense role should be able to strip seven points off of a plasma warhead.

But that's still not nearly as effective of a solution as the one available to the drone races.

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 04:57 pm: Edit

In my mind any booster that is not Pseudo based is inherently a drone or a fighter. It has already been declared that it will not be a drone. So this leaves us with fighters. I assume that we would want a cheap, disposable, unmanned fighter that is stripped down to performing only the booster function. The problem I see with this is that it would allow someone to mass large numbers due to the relatively long range fighters have. Imagine 36 Suicide Bombers devastating a base with 36 Plasma Fs.

I think we could explain away the extra Pseudos by saying that only the specialized launcher can use them and that these Pseudos can't be used for anything accept bombarding. They would be built at the factory as Bombardment Pseudos and could not be used for any other function. And normal Pseudos can't be used for this function. The only reason for calling them Pseudos at all is because it shows their heritage, and that they are not drones.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Joseph Riggs:

Please note that Hydran starbases do not have fighters integral to them. They are added by Hangar modules as any other starbase. I have studiously ignored everyone's fighters because they are added by modules, and the modules themselves can add things that increase the defenses, i.e., four hangar modules adds four more tractor beams for stopping drones. Two PF modules would add another dozen tractor beams to be used to stop drones. A starbase with two PF modules and four hangar modules would thus have 28 tractor beams. It could conceivably tractor 28 drones, then on a given impulse launch a wild weasel set to move on the next impulse. Even though it has to release all 28 drones, they do not move until the next impusle, and the wild weasel will not be in its hex at that point.

But note that I have prior to this point avoided the wild weasel defense also simply because it is too, too obvious and not necessarily available.

I am quite aware that in general terms most bombardment would be in support of an attack, and have chosen to simply look at the base being tied up trying to fend off the bombardment while other assets are engaged in combat with other attacking elements.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 05:16 pm: Edit

I think the Boosters should take damage compared to a Type-1 drone; 4 points.
Further, if they take damage and only one point remains (I.e., they take three damage) they immediately release their plasma. If there is no eligible target in range (10 is the maximum the booster can scan) then the plasam immediately goes inert.

Up this to 6 points or whatever. Killing a small target beyond R10 is pretty tough so 4 point should be about right. Fighter can go out to kill them but they run the risk of becoming targets. However, a base firing on boosters at long range (R16+ or R11+ for planets with atmosphere) will only need to do three points of damage which will cause early release at a harmless distance.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 05:21 pm: Edit

Armed Pseudoes would need one heck of a technobabble explanation of why, if it was possible to arm a pseudo at all, all pseudos were not armed. The ECP already establishes and launch and reloading restrictions already established for Pseudoes makes their use or conversion to a bombardment platform almost impossible to explain. It is extremely unlikely that something that can be launched from a shuttle bay one time in a scenario (FP12.44) could be converted to multiple launches, much less that it could be made to carry a plasma-F torpedo on its own with the necessary targeting array to operate. Having a pseudo carry a plasma-F is inherently the same thing as having a drone carry a plasma-F at this juncture.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 07:03 pm: Edit

SPP,

So ECPs are out. It seems the plasma booster is either a round of ammunition fired from a launcher or it is something based on a shuttle frame and engine.

In an early post you stated "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..."

Is a plasma booster based on a shuttle a viable direction to go? Since this type of booster would be the same size as a shuttle could it (the booster) carry 2 PL-Fs?

The Gorns have been mentioned as a race that could benefit from this weapon. A candidate ship to convert would be the HDD class. An HDD based carrier variant has 14 shuttle spaces and 2 balcony positions on each wing. The launch rate can be controlled by the number of arming racks verses shuttle racks for booster storage; 2 arming racks to 10 storage racks.

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 07:24 pm: Edit

Joseph,

It does appear that the only option left open is a shuttle.

Steve,

How about this for some technobabble:
After discovering that they(some plasma race) could make the ECM Plasma they realized that they had a unit with enough power on board to hold a plasma. However initial studies showed that a Plasma F was to large to be contained by a standard Pseudo. But undeterred the research continued. After a few years a heavily modified and expanded pseudo was successfully tested.

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Note: In order for the modified Pseudo to perform its Bombardment function it has been so specialized that it can no longer perform any of the other Pseudo functions. Also it can only be launched on a ballistic course.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Another way to limit the number of launches is to state they need to be launched from a balcony position. The Gorn and ISC would benefit.

Having to move the "launcher" out on the balcony and then launch it would only allow at most 8 from most ships to be launched in an impulse.

Just my 2 cents.

Gorn DN Dreadnought Balcony Positions, Left 4
Gorn DN Dreadnought Balcony Positions, Right 4
Gorn BC Battlecruiser Balcony Positions, Right 3
Gorn BC Battlecruiser Balcony Positions, Left 3
Gorn CA Heavy Cruiser Balcony Positions, Left 3
Gorn CA Heavy Cruiser Balcony Positions, Right 3
Gorn CC Command Cruiser Balcony Positions, Left 3
Gorn CC Command Cruiser Balcony Positions, Right 3
Gorn CL Light Cruiser Balcony Positions, Left 2
Gorn CL Light Cruiser Balcony Positions, Right 2
Gorn CLA Aegis Cruiser Balcony Positions, Right 2
Gorn CLA Aegis Cruiser Balcony Positions, Left 2
Gorn CLE Escort Cruiser Balcony Positions, Right 2
Gorn CLE Escort Cruiser Balcony Positions, Left 2
Gorn CV Carrier Balcony Positions, Right 3
Gorn CV Carrier Balcony Positions, Left 3
Gorn LSC Large Scout Balcony Positions, Right 2
Gorn LSC Large Scout Balcony Positions, Left 2
Gorn HDD Heavy Destroyer Balcony Positions, Left 2
Gorn HDD Heavy Destroyer Balcony Positions, Right 2
Gorn BDA Aegis Battle Destroyer Balcony Positions, Right 2
Gorn BDA Aegis Battle Destroyer Balcony Positions, Left 2
Gorn BDD Battle Destroyer Balcony Positions, Left 2
Gorn BDD Battle Destroyer Balcony Positions, Right 2
Gorn BDE Battle Destroyer Escort Balcony Positions, Left 2
Gorn BDE Battle Destroyer Escort Balcony Positions, Right 2
Gorn DD Destroyer Balcony Positions, Right 2
Gorn DD Destroyer Balcony Positions, Left 2
Gorn DDF Fleet Destroyer Balcony Positions, Right 2
Gorn DDF Fleet Destroyer Balcony Positions, Left 2
Gorn DE Destroyer Escort Balcony Positions, Right 2
Gorn DE Destroyer Escort Balcony Positions, Left 2
Gorn DEA Aegis Destoryer Balcony Positions, Left 2
Gorn DEA Aegis Destoryer Balcony Positions, Right 2
Gorn SC Scout Balcony Positions, Right 2
Gorn SC Scout Balcony Positions, Left 2
Gorn TUG Tug Balcony Positions, Left 2
Gorn TUG Tug Balcony Positions, Right 2
ISC CVA Heavy Carrier Balcony Positions 4
ISC CVA Heavy Carrier Balcony Positions 4
ISC DN Dreadnought Balcony Positions 2
ISC CA Star Cruiser Balcony Positions 2
ISC CC Flagship Cruiser Balcony Positions 2
ISC CV Fleet Carrier Balcony Positions 4
ISC CVS Strike Carrier Balcony Positions 4
ISC CL Light Cruiser Balcony Positions 2
ISC CS Strike Cruiser Balcony Positions 2
ISC CVL Light Carrier Balcony Positions 4
ISC CVLS Light Strike Carrier Balcony Positions 4
ISC HSC Heavy Scout Balcony Positions 2
ISC SR Survey Cruiser Balcony Positions 2
ISC TUG Fleet Tug Balcony Positions 2

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 07:52 pm: Edit

A unit in the center of a pseudo, that maintins it from decay would not be any sort of drone or shuttle.

This would give a pseudo an arbitrarily increased range suitable for the bombardment mission. A facet of the pseudo is that the maintenance unit, say, could not maintain a pseudo of a greater warhead strength than 5, so the pseudo decaus normally until it reaches a warhead of 5 and then sits there until the maintenance unit shuts down.

The maintenance units work as ammunition to limit the length of the bombardment.

I do not believe PB needs launch rates anywhere near those of a DB unit simply because plasma is harder to defend against.

As a result, I don't see a need to shotgun torp to get an acceptable bombardment rate. 3-4 PB launchers running 2-turn plasmas should be just fine.


Loren,

My point is primarily a matter of scale. DB occurs at ranges in the thousands of hexes from the base. I am attempting to propose a PB that matches this. A PB that occurs at 100 hexes is a very different beast pricisely because it can be counterattacked directly by the base or any mobile units docked at it.

By William J Gauthier (Emperorvortia) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 08:06 pm: Edit

S. Petrick

All your examples seem to reflect a Starbase by itself being attacked by a barrage of Plasma Bombardment, by itself. If that were the case, can't the base simply fire all of it's in arc Phaser-4s in a single volley eliminating 100 points of plasma at range 1?

My original proposal has the boosters moving at speed twenty, which is ample time to eliminate them before they close to range, and if the base has fighters, as it quite rightly should, It should be able to handle it's defense quite handily, although different tactics would be necessitated than those used against a Drone Bombardment (naturally). Whilst it does require a significant amount of Phasers, a Plasma Bombardment doesn't interfere with the Heavy Weapons or other systems of a Starbase, which would still be capable of being dangerously threatening to any fleet which might move into the area.

By Joseph Riggs (Junior) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 08:24 pm: Edit

William -

Remember that SPP's example was based on 24 boosters doing 300 damage...

Which means that you've got 200 points of incoming plasma damage to deal with even after the 100 points are reduced from your point-blank phaser fire.

By William J Gauthier (Emperorvortia) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 08:54 pm: Edit

Having looked into the mathmatics of the whole thing, most bases should be able to destroy over half of the Plasma-Bombardment drones of a volley before they impact with their Phaser-4s alone, assuming a base w/rotation 4. Drone races, races that have ADDs (which can fire Type-VI drones at the boosters) and the Feds, who can fire Photons with Proximity fuzes should be able to chew up this attack and spit it right back out. Disruptor races seem to be almost as effective. The only races which seem to have any inordinate fear of this attack are the aforementioned Hydrans, Lyrans, etc, but since they are on the far end of the Alpha Octant from the Plasma users, this is less of a concern. Both races also suffer from a general weakness against plasma, however, and since it never seems to have been necessary to address this before I fail to see why now that it is being fired from boosters taht it is suddenly cause for alarm.

By William J Gauthier (Emperorvortia) on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 08:56 pm: Edit

With a Base w/rotation four, firing Phaser-4s only, you can deal:
2 damage at range 100
2 damage at range 80
6 damage at range 60 (1 destroyed)
12 damage at range 40 (2 destroyed)
20 damage at range 20 (4 destroyed; stacks with damage from first two turns)
100 damage at range 0 (6 destroyed after launch)

This is, once again, only using Phaser-4s, and ignoring the Fighter squadron which should be present on any Starbase, since a Starbase is more or less a Strategic Priority and wouldn't be left without Hanger Modules.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 01:49 am: Edit

You may be assuming perfect distribution between boosters and perfectly average damage output from the base's P-4s. One rule of averages is that the actual average rarely appears in practice. The classic example of this is expecting 32 damage from 4 OL photons at range-8.

The dice will decree that some boosters will be overkilled and others will require extra resources to destroy.

You're also restricting yourself to one round of bombardment. If all the base has to deal with is 24 boosters coming in, and the base knows it, it weasels and they all go away at no more cost than a shuttle. To say nothing of a well-placed T-bomb.

The same problem holds for DB of course, but DB is sustained for such a length that it runs out all the weasels, blows through all the intervening mines, and still has more coming in.

That's why SPP never addressed the question of weasels or mines. His examples deal with the portion of the bombardment after all those things have happened.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 03:09 am: Edit

It would be foolish to just weasel right off so you cannot just discount weasels.

The proper use of WW is to use them when the averages fall below what is required to fend off damage. So you fire and destroy as many as you can. If too many get by to counter with close range fire and reinforcement then you put out a WW.

The one thing about DB or PB will be that the only random numbers will be your own. So you are challenged with working the numbers, capitolizing on your succes and mitigating failure. You can sacrafice shields that you can repair and such because there is no unknown quantities... I.e., enemy ships. So you cannot discount ANY tool for the defense.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 03:31 am: Edit

Loren,

SPP left both enemy and friendly ships out of his discussions assuming that they were occupying each other. It simplifies the discussion and minimizes the sideroads the conversation could take.

A starbase that is the focus of a PB assault is very likely also under direct attack and may not feel too comfortable sacrificing shields if there's an enemy siege fleet in the area. Even if the base has its own share of defenders.