I didn't mention ships but since you did then the situation become much easier as accompanying ships can transport T-Bombs through rear shields to take out Boosters (which, unlike plasma torpedoes can be destroyed by T-Bombs and other non-phaser weapons). If the friendly ships end up targeted they can out run the F-Torps and deal with the few that would be targeting them. Of course it would be an added challenge to do that plus continue to deal with the enemy ships.

In most scenarios the battle will be balanced and the bombardment will translate to defensive BPV so I don't think there is a problem (with what I proposed).

If there is it might be that the PB I set up is too easy to counter.

I won't have time for a few days to post a rule work-up but I will later in the week.

By William J Gauthier (Emperorvortia) on Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 11:19 am: Edit

J. Trauger says "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."

And why is it any different for a full bombardment? The main difference between Drones and Plasma, and which is carried over into my rules is that it takes three turns to charge up Plasma, by the third turn the base could have yet another weasel. Sure, keep it up and eventually it'll be out of weasels, but the only way to keep the pressure on: staggering firing of Plasma, results in an underwhelming bombardment.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 07:01 pm: Edit

Loren Knight said on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 05:16 pm: "I think the Boosters should take damage compared to a Type-1 drone; 4 points."

REPLY: At that point you are saying that a plasma-F can be mounted on a type-I drone equivalent.

Joseph R Carlson said on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 07:03 pm: "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."

REPLY: Uhm, no. Not what I said. Apologies that it was not clear. What I was trying to say is that you cannot go off the pseudo torpedo as either pseudo or ECP because it creates too many problems. If a pseudo could be armed at all, there is no viable reason for the plasma races not to arm all pseudos. Given the limit of preparing one ECP for launch from a shuttle bay during an entire scenario (in addition to those on in the PPT tubes), suddenly creating a rule to allow them to launch in mass raises a question of why all ships cannot do this. Current plasma-F usage separate from a plasma-F launcher places them on fighters which hold pre-loaded plasmas, and can do this for at least as long as a fighter can fly, which is at least as long, if not longer, than a type-IIIXXF drone can operate. (A fighter strike launched from a carrier can affect an adjacent Fed and Emp hex, but a drone bombardment platform has to be in the same Fed and Emp hex as the drone bombardment target.) Shuttle frames are not viable as a platform due to their size, which would limit the numbers that could be used. (A cargo box can hold 25 type-IIIXX drones, but only two shuttles and that only if they are not ready for flight.) Further is the range problem. If a Pseudo could be modified to have such range, then the immediate reaction would be to apply that range to the ECP system. Ultimately, if this thing comes to exist, it cannot build off of PPT/ECP technology because it backfeeds too many problems into those systems. And using something the size of a shuttle does not work as it would be impossible to build such things into the existing launcher systems or to build something to carry enough of them to make them practical for the "open space battle" that they were originally proposed as a fix. Because of the difficulty of stopping a deployed plasma as compared to a drone, I am concerned about the potential devastation to bases if this was added. Bases already have a hard time versus plasma, and creating a system that increases the amount of plasma that can be brought against a base would pretty much render their existence largely moot. That is why I am looking at the base situation.

James Hallmark: See above responses.

William J Gauthier said on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 08:54 pm: "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 that it is suddenly cause for alarm."

REPLY: How about because it is a sudden massive increase in the amount of plasma they would have to defend against on a single turn? You are making a radical change in the plasma firepower available to an attacker and then just shrugging and saying it would make no difference, i.e., ". . . no cause for alarm". If it is not a "case for alarm", then obviously, by your own words we could just drop the discussion as you are expressing an opinion that these would have no noticeable effect on such a battle. The fact is that they would have a very noticeable effect, greatly complicating any base’s ability to defend. As to using fighters, others have responded adequately to why I have not mentioned fighters, or PFs, or other defending units, or for that matter the synergy of other attacking units to disrupt and draw those defensive units away and out of position. There is a major difference between units that can maneuver, and perhaps back up to avoid being mugged by a mass of "long range plasma" and bases that either deal with it, or blow up. I tend to consider both offensive and defensive uses and effects when someone proposes something, and consider both terrain effects (note atmosphere effects versus plasma bombardment I covered in a previous comment, but there are also asteroids and other effects to consider), electronic warfare, and . . . I can go on. And it is easier to just look at the plasma effects versus straight up defenses and not consider a mass of bombardment plasmas arriving at the same time as a host of closing plasma ships (synergy for maximum effect) thus tying up or blinding other defenses. There are still many things not covered in this. If the idea is bombardment like drone bombardment, the range is too limited (they would still count against the on map command rating which is not desirable unless they have a much higher and sustainable launch rate). But if they do, then they become even more overpowering against bases because plasma is so firepower intensive to deal with. You are also not considering other aspects, like the tactics that can be used in drone bombardment.
If the "boosters" have a speed of 20, then I will launch them at 101 hexes (or launch them such that they arrive at 101 hexes on Impulse #32 of Turn #0) range so that they will end Turn #1 at 81 hexes range. You can shoot at them at 100 hexes if you wish, but they will still end Turn #1 at 81 hexes range.
The average damage is still going to be "2", but they will end Turn #2 at 61 hexes range (average damage six).
Turn #3 will get them to 41 hexes range (average damage six).
Turn #4 will get them to 21 hexes range (average damage 20).
Turn #5 on Impulse #16 they reach range 11 (average damage 54) points, any not destroyed at this point will move on Impulse #17 and then release their plasmas which will hit for an average of 15 points of damage on Impulse #27.
If you did not fire on them before they released in order to have that 100 points of possible damage (giving up the 54 points at range eleven), more of them will survive to release their plasmas. If you fire at range 11, you score an average of 88 points (the total average damage you will score during the five turns they are approaching), and get hit by the surviving plasmas. If you do not fire at range 11 in order to wait to fire at the plasma torpedoes at range one (for an average of 100 points), then you score only 34 points on the approaching boosters, not the 42 you estimated.
Sorry, but I HAVE done this sort of thing (thanks to MW drones and scatter-packs, admittedly, for timing the release of submunitions, not versus plasma boosters) and I have been on both sides of the equation versus bombardment drones (I am a very, very, VERY OLD but experienced base commander, thankyouverymuch). But as you can see, you only get FIVE turns to shoot at them, not six, and that range 25-40 bracket only gets used if you want to waste your range 18-25 bracket shot.

By William J Gauthier (Emperorvortia) on Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Steve - Point taken on Bombardment missions not being restricted by CR and timing firing. I'll keep watching this thread and see if I can't adjust my proposal accordingly. What would be the best way to adjust my boosters to make them less overwhelming, besides perhaps making them less numerous on vessels?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 01:19 am: Edit

Wllliam,

---

Quote:

And why is it any different for a full bombardment? The main difference between Drones and Plasma, and which is carried over into my rules is that it takes three turns to charge up Plasma, by the third turn the base could have yet another weasel. Sure, keep it up and eventually it'll be out of weasels, but the only way to keep the pressure on: staggering firing of Plasma, results in an underwhelming bombardment.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 11:17 am: Edit

SPP: I'm sorry but I canot follow the logic that if a booster is four points to kill then it is a plasma on a drone. Can I then put a phaser-3 on a type-4 drone because a shuttle can and it also take six points to kill? I suspect no because a shuttle and a drone are not the same. So my answer to your statement is that a plasma booster and a drone are not the same and so it would say in the rules.

The arguement based simply damage value has been regected before by ADB as an arguement for something. Why does it now work against this?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 04:45 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

The problem is that you need something large enough to do the job, but small enough to be carried in large numbers and relatively easily deployed to do the bombardment mission. If the object in question requires four points to destroy and is generally the size and use of a drone (whether type-IX or type-IIIXX) it is a drone. If it takes as much space as a shuttle, then it is operationally a shuttle (in other words, virtually impossible to deploy in the numbers needed for the bombardment mission).

The upshot is that it has to be something that is "neither fish (drone) nor fowl (shuttle)." But if it is some sort of "taxi" vehicle it will fall into one of those categories (too small and therefore impossible to prevent becoming a drone system for use by all plasma-fighters and possibly plasma racks, or too large in which case it is not worth deploying if for no other reason than that it is too tactically inflexible).

It needs to be (in order to be at all) something that does not confuse those categories, and yet have some plausible level of technobabble that does not just flat seem out of place.

One of the problems is that it is almost (and may actually simply be) impossible to just make it a firing function of any plasma tube because of the existing of the Triaxians in Module C4 [see (FP51.34)]. Were it not for the Triaxians long range plasma could simply be an option for the loading of a torpedo (even if it required a new plasma table). William J Gauthier is at least going a different route in that he wants some kind of taxi that delivers a mere plasma-F down range. So it STILL MIGHT be an arming choice for plasma-G and larger tubes (rather than a bombardment system), i.e., allocate "X" amount of points on the final turn of arming to "encapsulate" a plasma-F in a "force bubble" that has a range of "Y", "Y" being some range far less than 100 hexes in this case, perhaps just twenty hexes (I do not know, I just tossing out a thought). Any ship with a G or larger torpedo can use this option.

I think such an option as just described would still be absolutely devastating to bases (it would make plasma-G torpedoes a lot more effective in the long range attack on such a base). But it avoids messing around with drone systems or shuttle bodies, has a cost to use (additional power), could be further modified as requiring some portion of the power to be added on each of the arming turns to shape the special energy field (would help explain why these have not turned up in previous battles in SFB history) and so on.

NO, I AM NOT PROPOSING SOMETHING AND TRYING TO SHOVE IT DOWN YOUR THROATS (emphasis), I am just asking you all to avoid being caught in a box of thought processes. I am not sure the Plasma races have to have "drone bombardment capabilities", and am not convinced (based on my own experiences, but note that I do not fight "all war cruiser fleets") that there is a real problem being addressed in plasma versus non-plasma, but I am quite content to wage "phaser battles" in large fleet actions to create a situation I can exploit with my plasmas later.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Plasma bombardment weapon:
Below is an alternate idea for a two-stage plasma torpedo.

Whatever a boosted plasma is needs to be based on plasma technology. I suggested up tread a variation of the enveloping plasma torpedo (EPT). For discussion purposes it is called a wrapped plasma torpedo (WPT). The first plasma torpedo is loaded normal and second plasma torpedo of the same size is loaded normally but encompasses (wraps) the first torpedo.

A PL-G chamber can load a WPT-F; A PL-S chamber can load a WPT-G; a PL-R chamber can load a WPT-S. WPT-M: the inner plasma torpedo is an PL-S and the outer is an PL-M.

1. When the first torpedo is at 1 unit of energy the second torpedo is launched.

2. The WPT lasts 32 impulses.

3. The inner and outer torpedoes can be saboted. The inner plasma follows (FP11.21) and the outer plasma follows (FP11.231)

4. Arming of the inner plasma torpedo follows (FP1.2). Arming of the outer plasma torpedo follows the rules in (FP5.2).

5. If the outer torpedo is damaged per (FP1.6), the inner torpedo is launched when the outer torpedo has one point of energy left.

Examples:
When a WPT-G (outer PL-F) reaches range 15, on impulse 12, the inner PL-F is launched and can travel its full range and reach zero energy, which happens on impulse 27.

When a WPT-S (outer PL-G) reaches range 20, on impulse 16, the inner PL-G is launched and can travel an additional 16 impulse. This would be range 16 for the inner PL-G and hit with 10 point of energy. Total range would be 36 hexes. A saboted inner PL-G will travel an additional 16 impulses but reach range 20 (total = 40).

When a WPT-R (outer PL-S) reaches range 25, on impulse 20, the inner PL-S is launched and can travel an additional 12 impulse. This would be range 12 for the inner PL-S and hit with 22 point of energy. Total range would be 37 hexes. A saboted inner PL-S will travel an additional 12 impulses but reach range 15 (total = 40).

When a WPT-M reaches range 30, on impulse 24, the inner PL-S is launched and can travel an additional 8 impulse. This would be range 8 for the inner PL-S and hit with 30 point of energy. Total range would be 38 hexes. A saboted inner PL-S will travel an additional 8 impulses but reach range 10 (total = 40).

A WPT is detected based on the rules in (FP1.32). Holding cost is paid each turn for the inner torpedo.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Well, it seems to me then that there is no room for a taxi vehicle unless it is five points? I really think the taxi vehicle has to have low damage resistance.

Regarding extended range plasma I've proposed long ago a firing option called myopic plasma that extends the range of a plasma by five. Inside the myopic zone it cannot do damage and you decide on this during EA of the final turn of arming. I believe it was regected.

I have a hard time seeing anything that can go further than that just on arming energy. A carrier vehicle can at lease have it's own propultion to reach the ranges required for PB.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 11:01 pm: Edit

Loren, I think the problem is the size of the booster more than the damage points.

It has to be clearly bigger than a drone. Presumably too big to launch from a reloadable rack. It has to be much smaller than a shuttle or why not just use fighters?

Right now there's nothing in between and no obvious way to fit something in easily.

Drones are 1 or 2 cargo points. Shuttles are 50. If this silly thing is going to exist it needs to be in the middle of those numbers, something too big and expensive to casually use like drones but small and cheap enough that "why not use fighters" answers itself.

10 cargo points is a number clearly too big for a drone and too small for a shuttle (but call it size class 6 with a shuttle small target modifier and other behavior for rules interaction).

Now we need something that can carry and launch these things. A cargo pod sized object (fits on auxiliaries or carried by tugs) could plausibly hold 60 or so along with handling gear able to arm them and launch them through something nearly the size of a shuttle hatch. If the (small cheap underpowered single shot) F-tubes in these throw away platforms can only hold torpedos for a small number of turns (10 say) and the arming rate is slow enough (4 launchers per platform say which take a full three turns to arm and you are far enough out that most of those turns are used just to get in possition at top speed) then the bombardment will be spread out enough that it can be dealt with without being any more difficult than a drone bombardment to deal with.

I really don't like this idea. But it strikes me as better than most of what I'm seeing on this thread.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 11:49 pm: Edit

So it's a dead horse? Just because so,ething takes only four points to destroy doesn't mean it is the same saze as another.

The device I imagined was something that perhaps attaches to a plasma launcher. The boosters are load in and the launcher transfers the plasmas to the booster. During the plasma reload process the booster system is reloaded for the next round.

Yes, I did imagine something that carried a Pl-F charge.

I do agree that the Pl-F booster has a considerable challenge in that it must have the electronics to target the plasma but drones can aquire targets. They can even carry multiple drones.

Is the Pl-F system on a fighter larger than a drone? What size unit do you get when you remove everything from a fighter except the computer and the warp drive (and the warp drive can be made much smaller since most of the safety systems can be removed and it is a system designed to burn out in one mission; I.e., cheeper parts). You elimiate the crew area, life support, inertial stabilizeers (beyond structural support), weapons, and Pod support. No landing gear/systems either.

I think what you would get is something smaller than a shuttle but bigger than a drone and a little more expensive than a drone. As such, four points seems about right. Four makes them reasonably vunerable at range but in numbers sufficiently durable. Remember that at R10 the plasma releases and become MUCH harder to destroy.

The targeting system is simpler than the one for a MW-Drone since it has only one munition to target. The guidence system only ever will be tame boar as opposed to a drone targeting system of which tame boar is the simplified sub-mode (the target is a non-moving point in space).

Since this thing is clearly larger than a drone and could NEVER be carried by a fighter the PB ship would also have then in more limited quantities. While the launcher could produce unlimited numbers of Pl-F munitions the boosters would be limited in number. As such you have a system that works similarly to a DB mission but within it's own parameters that are specific to plasma torpedos.

By William J Gauthier (Emperorvortia) on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 12:13 am: Edit

Personally, I think this insistance that something that takes 4 points of damage must be a drone is a bit silly. Perhaps it is a much larger target, just more poorly armored? Perhaps it is less capable of avoidign incoming fire than a drone? Perhaps the Plasma Torpedo it is carrying is unstable and therefore it is easy for incoming fire to make it rupture? I think that the booster should take more damage than 4 points, but I don't see how it just being 4 points makes it a drone.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 01:58 am: Edit

Loren,

It appears that once a booster (warp engine) is added to a stasis-held plasma it becomes a drone or a shuttle. Fighters fire their PL-Fs from a launcher like a photon torpedo. I suppose then the PL-F launcher and photon torpedo launcher are of similar size (based on the Gorn versions of A-10 and A-20). So plasma torpedoes are either fired from a plasma chamber (PL-F through PL-R) on a ship or from a stasis launcher on a fighter (PL-F).

Further the Plasma bombardment weapon seems to have a very narrow separation between too few and too many, which makes this concept very difficult to balance.

Whatever a two-stage plasma is needs to be based on plasma technology. I suggested up tread a variation of the enveloping plasma torpedo (EPT), which I had written prior to SPPs post. For discussion purposes it is called a wrapped plasma torpedo (WPT). This is more along the line of what SPP suggested "special energy field".

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 11:21 am: Edit

I am leaving this topic. This does not mean that the proposal is dead, as SVC may accept it (and I promise not to try to influence him one way or another but to just accept whatever he decides). It just means I will not read it any longer or post any further input.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 11:41 am: Edit

Is there a problem? I may have decided that continuing to post in this topic on my part was counter-productive, but that does not mean that the topic is shut down or the concept rejected. Certainly my departure is not a reason for others to stop posting.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 12:38 pm: Edit

Well, I'm away from my books and can't prepare a good proposal until later in the week... which BTW, is certainly not my opinion of the only way but one mans one idea.

SPP: I might have guessed that from your first post but your second does make ME feel better about continuing. Thanks.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 08:24 pm: Edit

We're on two different wavelengths and can't agree whether this is a proposal for something that happens at the edge of base assault (launching ships at range 100 or so) or a plasma equivalent of DB which occurs past 1000 hexes.

Trying to keep the two ideas straight when they constantly bleed into each other has made for a chaotic topic thread.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 11:13 pm: Edit

I'm fine with simply moving my proposed idea to 1000 hexes. Range really was never the issue.

However, one must consider how a PB ship will function at both stratigic and tactical range (as with any DB ship).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Agreed.

It seems straightforward to me that a PB ship gains the ability to do 1000+ range bombardment at the cost of being effective up close.

My proposals have limited PB ships to launching F-torps from my first alternate-proposal post.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 05:22 pm: Edit

Well, a PB ship would be different but perhaps not less effective at the tactical level... well, it would be if alone.

Conside that the halmark of PB is the ability to launch plasma on a tame boar course. This means that a PB ship that is part of a fleet can launch a secondary wave of plasma that could be set up to not be affected by a WW launched against another wave launched by the fleet.

It might be that a PB ship will need to have scout sensors (regardless) but that unlike the DB ship it may need a split BPV implemented like a scouts.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Loren

That all makes sense. I never stripped the PB ship of the ability to laun ch plasma as much as limited them to F-torps only. For SC4 ships it's not a big deal, but SC3 ships used to S-torps would see a serious reduction in effectiveness.

I can see putting sensors on these things but their usefulness will depend on what sort of booster we give them. A plasma-based booster, such as I propose would tend to blind the sensors.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 03:48 pm: Edit

This is part of why I wanted to make the Booster system an add on to a heavy plasma launcher that can then only launch shotgun Pl-F's.

1) The Boosters can only handle a Pl-F (and not a Pl-G but that can remain open for debate).
2) A PB ship in tactical combat would have no heavy plasmas available but would still have any defensive Pl-F's. So a KRPB armed with two Pl-S-B(ooster) and two Pl-F's would only be able to put out six Booster Pl-F's per three turns and would have the regular Pl-F's as it's basic defense in case it gets jumped while bombing a target.
3) In tactical combat our KRPB, unlike the DB ship, the PB ship can ONLY launch Tame Boar Boosters from the Pl-S-B. This provides a very different tactical feel for the PB unit from the DB unit (E.g., D6D which has no tactical limitations). This provides both an advantage AND a disadvantage resulting in a tactially interesting unit, IMHO.
4) The PB ship cannot launch heavy plasma without destroying the Booster Refit (added to the tube end of the plasma) which also destroys the tube. I suppose I'd be willing to allow that and then allow repair of the tube which would then be capable of launching regular heavy plasma. I doubt anyone would do that but it's a fun idea.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 05:49 pm: Edit

I would not be in favor of putting a G-torp on a booster.

Note that the standard KR has no F-torps. The K7R and KRC do have them.

The KRPB is putting out a huge mass of plasma. 120 points and very long ranged.

As an induividual unit, the tame boar targeting might create tactical problems that make up for the huge amount of damage it's putting out but in a fleet, it's a different story. Three PB ships can unload plasma equal to twice the heavy warhead strength of nomral plasma ships. bracketing a fleet with lots of plasma on both sides becomes a real possibility.

That double the warhead damage issue is why normal shotguns have to have different targets for each F-torp. Launching a shotgun on tame boar allows them to all have the same target again.

For all these reasons, I prefer to build a PB-specific plasma launcher. All it arm are F-torps in 2-turn F mode.

If I want a comparable launch rate to your shotgun arrangement, the KRPB would need 4 launchers. Give it one extra battery and it can pop off two F-torps every turn, which is very different from a burst of 6 at once.

My way, they'll hold their own in a fleet engagement but there's no huge 1-turn burst of plasma to administer a potential killing blow with.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 08:10 pm: Edit

Well, remember there is also another weakness which is the vulnerabilty of the booster itself. In a fleet engagement the tame boar has to travel to a specific place and fleet engagements move. So enemy units can move forward against them and take them out easilly (unless you have carefully planned to counter this...ah, tactics... love 'em!). This is also why the tame boar is important to balance.

However, perhaps we could allow a wild boar setting but say that it depletes the warhead and as such the F becomes a D torp. This setting is useful for placing a few in a wave to protect against fighter intercept (but D-Torps can be distracted by chaff so its not TOO effective).

Now you have a complex situation where you choose carefully what you do and how your react. Which is exactly what SFB is going for, right?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 09:21 pm: Edit

...except that game balance breaks down in the presence of extremes giving RPS situations.

Instead of being aggressive with PB plasma, it can be used as terrain.

A fleet can make an attack run flanked by a flock of PB plasmas.

The enemy will only know that the flock hasn't hit its release point YET and won't know when it will until it does. This will tend to deter the enemy from charging after a PB fleet that has shot off a lot of its heavy plasma (the enemy doesn't want a faceful of F-torps from surprise), covering the PB fleet's escape.