L.K.:


Yeah...something about it didn't feel entirely original...I just thought it was that "Admins can fire all types of drones" thing, that was getting to me.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Sunday, September 01, 2002 - 07:30 pm: Edit

I'm assuming that the 3 photon Fed Drogue is out?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 02:12 am: Edit

Yep.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 10:58 pm: Edit

So...


How about giving the Hydran AxCVL and AxCVA a less "cookie cutter" design.

I think APRs should be added to the design to recharge the fussion beams and hellbores of the Hydrans.

These require energy to arm whilst the drone armed fighters only require a few deck crew actions to completely reload.

I'ld gladly see a reduction in the number of deck crews in order to gain a few APRs with which to power those fighter based weapons.
...Although I think the Hydrans being versed in the use of fighters and knowing that you can use two deck crews working on the same fighter at once would instead just have more expensive AxCVs and have both the deck crews ( to repair damage ) and the APRs to arm the fighters heavy weapons.


I would also like to note that I disagree with the idea that Hydran AxCVs should just limit themselves to Stinger-Fs nor do I see the hydran adopting such a vessel as automatically meaning that Fed A-10s will also be easily based on AxCVs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 11:15 pm: Edit

How about a Fusion Arming Pod that carries a single charge on the fighter to arm one fusion beam. Could be added to the first firing (Total of three charges) to Overload it but causes two point of damage to the fighter?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 11:59 pm: Edit

Enough about the Hydran AuxVs, MJC. I've heard it all. When the time comes, I'll do something (or nothing) but until then you're just wasting bandwidth.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 12:00 am: Edit

SVC: OK here is my rule design for the Plama Gatling. I had little to go on so I used the Shotgun as a model. A couple of passages are down right copied. The rule is 95% original work though.

(FPlk.0) PLASMA GATLING

When Romulan scientists first copied the Plasma Shotgun technology from the Gorns in Y169 they were unaware that it was not applicable to the Plasma-F torpedo. Thinking that the Gorns had such a device they persevered to develop a similar device for use on their fighters. In Y171 the Romulans simultaneously discovered the there was no Gorn Plasma-F shotgun and made a break through in the development of the technology. By loading a Package System of Plasma-K Guidance Units into the launcher and arming them together an F Type Launcher could perform similar to the shotgun mode for larger systems. The system is primarily used on fighters though ships armed with Plasma-F Torpedoes can use the system as well, albeit slightly differently. In Y172 the Gorns had copied the technology. In Y173 it was generally available to all plasma using races except the Federation who never employed it on the few ships that carried Plasma-Fs.

(FPlk.1)DESIGNATION


The Plasma Gatling is the Shotgun mode for the Plasma-F with some differences. Its operation on fighters and ships differ slightly. When fired in this mode the result is four Plasma-Ks. The ability to fire a Plasma-F in Gatling Mode is paid for on an individual basis (see FPlk.223 and FPlk.25). It is a package that is bought and loaded into the launcher then fired. Other larger plasma tubes do not use the Plasma Gatling mode as they use the Shot gun mode already. There is no designation on any SSD.

(FPlk.2) OPERATION ON FIGHTERS AND SHIPS.

The Plasma Gatling differs slightly on fighters and ships.

(FPlk.21) OPERATION ON FIGHTERS.

The Torpedo tube on the fighter is loaded as a Plasma Gatling on the ship in a special way by arming the tube with four plasma-K guidance devices in a special package.

(FPlk.211) LAUNCH RATE: When launched from fighters the Plasma Gatling fires over two impulses. Two Plasma-Ks are launched each impulse with the same facing.

(FPlk.212) SEPARATE TARGETS: Both Plasma-Ks on each impulse must be fired on separate targets. The Plasma-Ks on the second impulse of firing may be fired on the same targets as the previous two or at different targets completely. All targets must be within the FA arch of the fighter. If there is not enough targets the excess plasma-K are removed from play or can be set on a ballistic course (F4.0) for deception purposes.

(FPlk.213) HEAVY FIGHTERS cannot fire two Plasma launchers on the same impulse if one of them is a Plasma Gatling. Remember the Plasma Gatling fires over two impulses on all fighters.

(FPlk.22). ARMING FIGHTERS.


(FPlk.221) DECISION: The decision to arm a fighter’s Plasma-F Torpedo with a Plasma Gatling is made when the deck crew loads the torpedo on the fighter in the shuttle bay. It requires no extra deck crew action beyond loading the torpedo normally. The decision to arm a Plasma-F as a Plasma Gatling precludes it from being fired as a Plasma-F until it is re-armed.

(FPlk.222) ENERGY: When loaded on fighters the Plasma Gatling requires no extra energy.


(FPlk.223) COST: It is assumed that all Carriers that carry Plasma-F armed fighters have enough Plasma Gatling Packages to arm all such fighters once. Additional Packages may be purchased under Commanders Options (S3.2 and S3.23) at a cost of one half BPV for each Package.

(FPlk.23) OPERATION ON SHIPS.

The plasma Gatling works differently on ships than on fighters. Though the launcher is loaded with the same package system.

(FPlk.231) SIMULTANEOUS LAUNCH: Unlike use on fighters all four Plasma-Ks fire in one impulse.

(FPlk.232) SEPARATE TARGETS: Each Plasma-K must have a separate target, and those targets must be within the tracking arch of the launcher. If there is not enough targets the excess are removed from play or can be given a ballistic course (F4.0) for deception purposes.

(FPlk.232) TWO LAUNCHERS: A given ship cannot fire two Plasma-F launchers on the same impulse if one of them is a Plasma Gatling. This does not restrict larger launchers like the Plasma Shotgun does.

(FPlk.233) BOLTS: A ship board Plasma-F armed as a Plasma Gatling can not be bolted.

(FPlk.24) ARMING


(FPlk.241) DECISION: The decision to arm a Plasma-F as a Plasma Gatling is decided during energy allocation of the third turn of arming.

(FPlk.241) ENERGY: To arm a Plasma Gatling one additional point of energy is required on the third turn of arming the Plasma-F launcher.

(FPlk.25) COST: Plasma Gatlings Packages on ships can be bought as commanders options for one half BPV each.

(FPlk.3) RESTRICTIONS


(FPlk.31) HOLDING: A Plasma-F armed as a Plasma Gatling can be held for no energy cost. This is a benefit of the freezer box technology the Plasma-F launchers have.

(FPlk.32) CONVERSION: Once armed as a Plasma Gatling it remains as such and can not be fired as another type unless fully re-armed. It cannot be converted to any other mode.

(FPlk.33) PLASMA-F LAUNCHERS ONLY: Larger plasma launchers (G, S, M, and R) armed in shotgun mode (or down graded to Type-F) cannot utilize the Plasma Gatling mode for each of their Plasma-Fs.

(FPlk.34) SENSOR BLINDING: Firing a Plasma Gatling will blind special sensors (G24.13) but only one sensor is blinded for each launcher that fires in Gatling mode (not one per component Type-K).

Well, there ya go. I haven't seen the plasma K rules so I hope there wont be any surprises there.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 04:48 am: Edit

High speed freighter based CV's?

Seriously, if you look at the design of the patrol and interdiction carriers, the ship is almost secondary-- as long as it can get the fighters to the site. Take a freighter hull, add larger engines, and the bare minimum re-enforcment to take fleet speeds, and you'd have yourself a dandy CVE-- and a cheap one that could be created, modified by local planets.
Note this wouldn't be a typical AuxCV-- the modifications required would be a permament refit-- I.E., the pod is no longer interchangable, and there'd be some other changes.
The ship would also be far inferior to "real" military shipos-- bad manuver, poor, or no HET capability, light weapons (P-3's/2's,) and very little "padding" for damage. I'd also suggest no version would be able to launch its fighters, or recover them as fast as a real warship.

Two ways this could go--
1. The concept did work, and some of them actually participated in the general war, relying on their ability to use the fighter groups as stand off weapons to stay out of trouble.
2. The possiblity of killing a fighter group by killing a large, poorly armed, unmanuverable mother ship lead to them being tasked as primary targets-- and for a ship that a single DW could kill, that was bad. Nearly every attempt to use them on the front lines ended in disaster, and the survivors ended up serving as expensive and hard to maintain AuxCV's.

2.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 01:12 pm: Edit

Funny, I thought we were wasting bandwidth on the ASM...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 01:35 pm: Edit

RS: wrong.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 08:29 pm: Edit

I have to confess a certain worry about new weapons/systems. A single ship, if found to be unbalanced, is pretty easy to fix. Once you've put a weapon system out there, and players have started to use it, any "fix" will result in howls of indignation.
That being said, could J3 sell without any new systems in it? R1-4 did, but I don't know if you would have the same dynamic.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Getting back to the idea of Lyran specific weapon, which could fire through the ESG and thus be an effect Lyran fighter weapon.

Re: By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 08:36 pm: Edit

I would like to prersent a through-put calculation with repect to Disruptors.

Disruptor	Standard
Range	0	1	2	3-4	5-8	9-10
To Hit	1-6	1-5	1-5	1-4	1-4	1-4
Damage	Na	5	4	4	3	3
Output	0	4.166	3.333	3.333	2	2
Throughput	0	2.083	1.666	1.666	1	1
Disruptor	Overload	(Non UIM)
Range	0	1	2	3-4	5-8	9-10
To Hit	1-6	1-5	1-5	1-4	1-4	1-4
Damage	10	10	8	8	6	6
Output	10	8.333	6.666	6.666	4	4
Throughput	2.5	2.083	1.666	1.666	1	1

As compaired to the output and throughput of the Disruption Generator.

Disruption	Generator
Range	0-1	2	3-4	5-8	9-10
To Hit	1-5	1-4	1-3	1-2	1
Light Base Damage	2	2	2	1	0
Standard Base Damage	4	4	4	3	3
Heavy Base Damage	6	6	6	4	0
Output Light @ Fighters	3.333	2.666	2	0.666	0
Throughput Light @ Fighters	6.666	5.333	4	1.333	0
Output Light @ PFs	1.666	1.333	1	0.333	0
Throughput Light @ PFs	3.333	2.666	2	0.666	0
Output Light @ ships	0.833	0.666	0.5	0.083	0
Throughput Light @ Ships	1.666	1.333	1	1.333	0
Output Standard @ Fighter	6.666	5.333	4	2	1
Throughput Standard @ Fighters	6.666	5.333	4	2	1
Output Standard @ PFs	3.333	2.666	2	1	0.5
Throughput Standard @ PFs	3.333	2.666	2	1	0.5
Output Standard @ Ships	1.666	1.333	1	0	0
Throughput Standard @ Ships	1.666	1.333	1	0	0
Output Heavy @ Fighters	10	8	6	2.666	0
Throughput Heavy @ Fighters	5	4	3	1.333	0
Output Heavy @ PFs	5	4	3	1.333	0
Throughput Heavy @ PFs	2.5	2	1.5	0.833	0
Output Heavy @ Ships	2.5	2	1.5	0.833	0
Throughput Heavy @ Ships	1.25	1	0.75	0.4166	0

As can be seen the weapon has near parity with the disruptor with respect to throughput, dispite having a close range bent.
The weapon also is much more effective at fighting it's primary opponent, the Hydran Stinger than it is at destroying ships, which will make the weapon less able to ruin a battle, because like the RaLADD it's real job is the destruction of enemy drones and fighters.

I think the weapon would remain a fighter only weapon, possibly mounted on PFs that have an anti-fighter role, because the through put and the range limitation in comparison to the disruptor is so great, that disruptors are the better weapon for ship to ship fighting.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 10:37 pm: Edit

If you want a seeking weapon/fighter weapon that is not effected by ESGs give the Lyrans plasmas.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 11:50 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

If you want a seeking weapon/fighter weapon that is not effected by ESGs give the Lyrans plasmas.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 12:06 am: Edit

I wasn't serious and ment no ill will. Of course what you say is true. I should have put a at the end of my post.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 04:13 am: Edit

Oh, YOU may not of meant anything by it, but "speak the devils name and he shall appear" is a wise saying with the evils of tech slosh. Soon the Tholians' will be crawling out muttering about PC's with the P-1's replaced by P-G's....

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 10:05 am: Edit

Well...there is the possibility that they could field a limited number of plasma, courtesy of the plasmium mines (and tech) captured in the Peladine system...

::accelerating to strategic warp to disengage::

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 10:11 am: Edit

On a [slightly] more serious bent, though, what if the Lyrans did tap those plasmium mines, but rather than channel it to shipboard weapons, instead focused on the limited production for D-torps and K-torps (which use relatively small quantities of plasmium)? It would give Lyran fighters something that could pass through ESGs, at least....

::decelerating, though I know I may regret it::

By Stuart C. Brennen (Evlstu) on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 01:42 pm: Edit

Actually, I doubt there would be enough plasmium for the entire Lyran fleet.

My problem with giving the Lyrans seeking weapons (plasmas, drones, whatever) is that once you do that the Lyrans are no longer Lyrans.

Now I don't mind a few unusual ships (3 or 4) added to their fleet; but not a fleet wide change. That just keeps your opponents guessing until they close the range or shoot.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 01:51 pm: Edit

Stuart: this is being mentioned as a solution for fighters, not as a shipboard item. Heck, Lyran fighters already have drones, and you don't see drone racks on a Tiger....

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 02:47 pm: Edit

The only reason you do not see ". . . drone racks on a Tiger . . ." is because (S3.3) Ship Modifications was outlawed. It was quite a common thing (prior to it being outlawed) for many Lyran players to use (S3.3) to install a drone rack, even a Klingon "F-rack" in a shuttle box, as a buffer to protect their ESGs from being damaged by an initial volley of internals (and by expending three repair points) subsequent volleys.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Yup. 'Course, my point wasn't that players wouldn't want to mount them there, but rather that having particular weapon mounted on a fighter does not require that a similar weapon be mounted on ships of the same fleet.

i.e., just because Lyran fighters use drones does not mean that Lyran ships get drone racks; just because a proposal might exist for Lyrans to make use of Peladine plasmium mines to arm their fighters with D- or K-torps (or some other plasma-thingie) does not mean that ship-mounted plasma would logically follow.

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 03:18 pm: Edit

What Jessica said.

By Jim Cummins (Jimcummins) on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Here's a Lyran fighter plasma thingie....

During the General war the Lyran government invited a couple of Romulan plasma engineers to review the Peladine systems for any benefits. After a few Romulan ales, the engineers combined Romulan plasma torpedoes with Lyran ESG circuitry came up with:

The fighter self enveloping plasma F:
The new Plasma F only works on fighters as they are small enough to be encompassed by a plasma F.

The Torpedo when launched, envelopes the launching fighter inside the plasma torpedo which is set to move at the current speed of the fighter. All seeking weapons impact the plasma torpedo first reducing the warhead strength as if it were and ESG. The fighter gains +3 ECM from sensor interference due to the enveloping plasma. The fighter can use the plasma sphere to damage units in its hex. Almost ramming, just close enough for the plasma torpedo to impact the target
The plasma warhead reduces with range as normal.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 04:41 pm: Edit

I like it!