Mericon: The Tandem computer is part of the electronic systems in the Bridge and Aux Con. Since there is no specific box, the Tandem computer cannot be used as a lab.

Jvontr: Yes, but if a fighter was within 10 hexes of both ships and both were lending, the fighter could only recieve EW from one ship.

Everyone, don't forget that this rule was specifically designed for the SCSL to be a desireable alternative to the SCS when the later ship is unavalable to the echelon commander.

I added a refit box to the SCSL-1 to show what I think might be a resonable cost for the Tandem computer.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/wcrawford/SSD/

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 01:23 pm: Edit

I thought the SCSL was supposed to be a "proof of concept" for the SCS.

It's just too darned useful, being able shift EW-lending from one ship to the other, and starts us down the slippery slope of "why not outfit every carrier with a Tandem computer so two full-carriers can do the same thing?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 01:37 pm: Edit

What if, since they would be used in pairs, the total EW from both could only equal the max EW a normal carrier could provide? Each provides half, or something like that?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 01:42 pm: Edit

Wayne: I have strong reservation about turning it on and off during a senario. Firstly, why would you turn it off? Second, all trasmitions need to be encoded and changed on a regular basis so the enemy can't intercept and or disrupt such vital comunications. The control frequencys, the engine atunements on the fighters, the voice subspace fequencys and the carrier wave algorythums on which all of this stuff opperates have to be set prior to any mission. So I would have to say two carriers linked in such a manner would have to be set up only at a base between scenarios. That would mean you would purchace you carriers linked or not before the scenario.

Also, ya, at the top of your rule I suggest adding "This is a ISC technology. All captured examples of these carriers had the Tandem System purged of it's software and it's hardware vaporized before the ship was finally captured as a matter of Crew and Computer Protocal." or something like that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Mike, I also suggested that a while back and have to fully agree with that. That is, of course, what makes it so powerful! Each carrier need only carry half the burden.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 01:50 pm: Edit

John: I wasn't intending to have the SCSL be 'proof of concept' (not to say that it could not have been such) as much as a viable replacement in echelons that were not able to recieve a SCS due to production limitations. The Tandem Computer would have been invented after the SCSL (if used as proof of concept) as a way to allow the 'test' hull to remain useful. I personally don't see the ISC as being the type of civilization that would wast anything and find new uses for old ideas.

I believe I fixed the problem with the 'slippery slope' you mentioned. Look at the revised GWC1.0 rule and the R13.WC1 rule.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 01:54 pm: Edit

What if you had the Tandem EW provider. And EACH ship had to contribute the same amount of EW to the fighters that they desired.

So if the Squadron wanted 3, EACH ship had to devote 3. So 6 power total for the 3 EW.

That would make in inefficent because of the split carriers.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Mike, Loren: I liked the EW suggestion, but as I read the fighter rules, I felt that having each carrier provide a portion of the EW might be in violation of the spirit, if not the actual wording. Looking at J4.921, the rule states that the fighter must be within 10 hexes of its home carrier. I don't feel right about allowing a fighter 9 hexes away from ship one to recieve the EW benefits of ship two that is another 14 hexes away. Now, if the fighter was within 10 hexes of both ships, the EW sharing might be possibe.

Loren: Look at revised GWC1.0 rule, I address the posibility of the ships being captured. I do like the idea you have of setting the 'programming' of the Tandem Computer only at a base.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Wayne: Also consider the situation of "Ready racks for fighters. If each ship carries different types of fighters one could not fully service the others fighters. EW and such would remain the same, of course.

You could have all the same type and have a single or mutiple squadrons. You could divide multiple types of fighters evenly between the two ships. Perhaps in the ship discription you should mention that each type of fighters position in the bay should be noted if using multiple types of fighters.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Loren: I added the part about turning it on and off because someone, somewhere will want to do that. As the rule develops, there might be a reason to turn the system off.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 02:35 pm: Edit

Loren: modified the rule to account for the programming and ready racks. No need for someone to attemt to take advantage of the rule.

Also, I removed 3 of the SSDs. Leaving the final (hopefully) version of the SCSL.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/wcrawford/

Go to the Rules directory for the rules and the SSD directory for the SSD.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 02:49 pm: Edit

The ISC use 1 assault fighter for every 2 superiority fighters. Your SSD shows a unified fighter wing which seems non-historic. Do you have a reason why?

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Scott: I'll keep your suggestion for inefficeint EW in mind, provided this rule is to powerful as written. I might consider stating that the 1st point of ECM and the 1st point of ECCM that each ship provides is lost due to ineffeincy. That way for both ships to provide 6 points of ECM each ship contributes 4 points. In your method, each ship would contribute 6 points.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Tos: Yes, because the SCS only used FSF fighters according to R13.4. The PFs effectively taking the place of the FTF fighters. Look at my R13.WC1, and it shows that when the SCSL was operated alone that the FTF/FTK fighters were employed.

By Clint Edward Nelson (Cen) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Just another opinion;
I like the concept of a smaller Space Control Ship.
The mix of FTRs and PFs is dandy.
I would the having the 1:3 mix of assult:superiority ftrs.
I would pitch the whole multiple ew lending concept. I see no reason for the ship to operate in pairs. The PFs add to the first echelon and the ftrs add in the situational support/oh crap here they come we need a few attrition units.
I think the ship is a small echelon 2nd tier vessel, and would more likly have G torps than S's.


cen

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Cen: I'm glad you like the concept. The R rule I put up allows for the mix of torpedo and superiority fighters (maybe I should make another SSD for this?) and the concept of operating in pairs was to give an echelon some of the abilities of the SCS, while adding something that is useful and unique to the ISC. The SCSL is built on the CL hull, as such, the ship carries S torps. To my knowledge there is no CL variant with G torps after S torps were invented and definetly not when PFs came onto the scene. If the SCSL design is successful, I don't see a reason not to have something similar in a destroyer hull, with 3 fighters and 2 PFs (I'm not too sure that something this small would work well, tho).

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 04:09 pm: Edit

Wayne,
For EW, I was thinking that each ship would lend. ie, Ship-1 lends 3 EW so the squadron (fighters within 10 hexes of ship-1) gets 3 EW. Ship-2 lends 2 EW so the squadron gets 3 EW (Ship-1). Fighters outside of Ship-1's lending range but within Ship-2's lending range get 2 EW.

This would allow one carrier to divert power otherwise used for EW to arming torps. Likewise it allows the two ships (at opposite sides of the eschelon) to lend, thus extending the area in which the fighters can move while supported with EW.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Mark K: The only difference I have is in the area where the fighter is within 10 hexes of both ships. Using your example, the fighter within the EW lending range of both ships would have 5 EW lent. Anything over the J4.91 limits would be lost on a fighter within 10 hexes of both ships.

Example: A non-crippled fighter is within 10 hexes of both ships linked with a Tandem computer and within 3 hexes of a EWF (2 pods). Each carrier is lending 6 EW (per J4.94). The fighter has 16 EW available to it, but can only use 8 (subtracting the built in EW present). 50% of the EW is basically lost in the overlap area in this case, but fighters not in the overlap area can benifit.

This is going to take extra thinking inorder to maximize the EW lent to the squardon and minimize wasting EW, which in the long run will leave additional power for other functions, like charging torpedoes.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Fighters not apart of the recieving squadron would not be able to recieve EW unless the carrier(s) had enough to spare. Also it is possible for fighters to only be able to recieve lent EW from one Carrier. i.e. within 15 of one but more than 15 from the other. So in order for a squadron to recieve from both carriers at the same time they would have to be between the two (within ten of both). It is fairly likely that the Tandom Computer wouldn't have much of an effect for about half of the play (depending on tactics of course).

It is when you are trying to kill the EW support that makes it so powerful. More likely, all the fighters would be destryed before the carriers would be. Being able to hand off lent EW is the most useful advantage here. It gives the fighters and PFs a much wider opperating zone without having to disrupt the Echelon.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Oh ya, Wayne. You might want to make extra clear that the system can only tie TWO identical carriers only. i.e. NOT THREE OR MORE!

I don't think this is too powerful a rule. Though I don't think it fulfulls any great need, I has some tactical complexity that would add some interesting uniqueness to the ISC. It seems to fit their social style. Their way of thinking. It is not cheep either. At 10BPV each ship, you need to plan to use it to your advantage, which is not a given. The range limitations will affect you maneuver which could be as much a burden as an advantage.

I wouldn't allow it to be copied if captured. Ever. Just say that it was purged in the last seconds of the battle. IMHO.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Loren: Ok, you convinced me that the Tandem Computer can't be captured. I also added a blurb that I hope makes it especially clear that this can only be used for 2 identical ships.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 05:44 pm: Edit

On a side note, I'm wondering what the Steves think about this idea. I'm guessing from their lack of comment so far that either they have not noticed this thread's new direction, or are letting this develop and see where it ends up before commenting.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 08:01 pm: Edit

Wayne,
If the EW is additive, then every race that encounters it would attempt to imitate it. If it is not (and only affords the squadron greater latitude of manuver), only the ISC (with their fixed doctrine) would find it a good option.

From the ISC perspective, I can see it as a "Solution" to the problem of high speed attrition units attempting to flank the eschelon. One carrier at either side providing EW and support would allow the fast moving fighters & PFs support without requiring the carrier to break formation. It also means you don't have to raise the BVP, something useful when you want to runs just one baby SCS... B-)

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 12:37 am: Edit

Mark K: EW is only additive in the overlap area that will, generally, be between the two carriers, and only to the limits specified in J4.91 & J4.94. In addition, if there were special sensors on the SCSL, each ship could use K2.52 to loan EW to the entire flotilla in the overlap area (15 hexes in this case).

Outside the overlap area, each fighter will only recieve EW from a single carrier. With both ships able to provide EW to a given fighter (within range) this extends the area in which the fighter has access to EW.

My feeling is that all of this allows the echelon to be spread out just a little more, making mines less useful to the enemy, while the fighters (and PFs with a ship with special sensors) have greater protection and effect within the echelon to deal with targets that may run the gunline.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 02:11 am: Edit

Cen's posting (specifcally about the Plasma Gs) got me to thinking and I started looking at all my SSD books. I rediscovered the CM buried in Module R6 and thought what the hell, give Cen what he wants and see if it will fly. It is R13.WC1B, and in teh SSD folder of my web site (if a directory structure can be called that ).