---

Quote:

How do 20 points "cripple one pf or break the shield on two"?

---

By John Murphy (Jemurphy) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 08:22 pm: Edit

If you make the pack an APR and a bat I can see it. I just see the Lyran doing more of what I do as a Lyran PF captain with 2 aprs. Sit at R10, give em hell and move away. You can even burn some HET to get away clean easily. Do that twicw and there will be 2 klingon PF's sucking wind. Done right at high speeds you can get a couple rounds like that taking oblique shots. With a bat and an APR, you can come in close or snipe at range but by making 1 a bat you get 1 free OL and the next time you have to charge the bat.

By Stephen Brackett (Brak) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 09:52 am: Edit

Sighing and remembering the days when the Bobcat had ph-1s and were a terror.

Would be nice to do something for the Bobcat to make up for it's shortcomings. However, PF are sort of defined by thier operating characteristics and changing the power curve of one doesn't fit in very well with the idea of the ship class. Thinking maybe a redesign might be a better solution.

Tri hull,
1x Ph1 FH
2x Ph2 FA+R, FA+L
1x Disruptor FA
1x Ph3 RX

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 12:09 pm: Edit

Stephen:

My understanding of the P-1 on Bobcats is that they were removed and won't be put back on. The reasoning for this is that if the CW and DW don't have their P-2s upgraded, the PF certainly won't get one.

With this in mind, I think we should stay focused on making the current design workable, rather than a scratch redesign.

By Stephen Brackett (Brak) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Marc,

True, but the design I proposed does fit in with the basic design philosophy of the CW/DW with center mounted ph1 and Ph2s on the side pylons. Though I think the RX Ph3 I proposed was not in keeping should be two RS/LS.

I don't see how to make the current design more workable without increasing the number of systems on the ship which I don't think will get approved.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Stephen Brackett:

As has been noted, we are not going to do "heavy PFs" officially. A CW/DW tri-hull PF is a heavy PF.

If you want one, it was published in Stellar Shadows Journal.

It is not going to be a part of the official history.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 04:29 pm: Edit

SPP: Just curious. Was there a side consideration of having HPFs but under the same type of restrictions as Heavy Bombers?

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 04:57 pm: Edit

John Murphy:

The problem with the 1 APR, 1 BATT powerpack is that it is arguably MORE useful than 2 APR. By adding another point of reserve power you give the Bobcat a decided advantage over other PFs. I could do the following unplotted adjustments: acceleration of 10, accelerate by 5 and perform an HET, adjust my EW by another point, etc. The movement ramifications are tremendous.

By Stephen Brackett (Brak) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 08:55 pm: Edit

SPP

Actually the PF I was thinking of wouldn't be a heavy PF just an alternate design. Chop a Lynx in half and insert a center piece with 2 more hull, a center warp engine, disrupter, bridge and Ph-1. Change the Lynxes orignal bridge to an APR.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Which is even better than the Lyran PFH in SSJ1.

And why exactly aren't the ph-1s in that flotilla being used to make this here CW a full ph-1 ship?

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 10:20 pm: Edit

Well, the Klingons use 7 Ph-1 on the FWL when new production D7's only have three, so the more important ships don't always get priority :-)

That said, my version of an improved Lyran PF would use three engines (trimaran Lynx) to give it a little more durability and add a Ph-2 (total armament Ph-2 FA+L, Ph-2 FA+R, Ph-2 FX, Ph-3 LS, Ph-3 RS, 2 Disr FA.) having flown it a couple of times it's still not a great PF, but it is a bit more competitive.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Saturday, October 12, 2002 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Andrew:

A frigate isn't a PF (or an attrition unit in the true sense), so that comparison isn't justified. You might as well argue that there should be no P-1s on frigates and destroyers until cruisers are all upgraded.

With regard to your trimaran proposal, it looks balanced but SPP already said no trimarans.

The power pack seems a simple solution that doesn't require major changes to Lyran PFs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, October 12, 2002 - 03:39 pm: Edit

I like the power pack. The extra Battery does pose a problem as noted above. Two APR might be OK and a limiting factor might be that due to their compact size they must be serviced as much as the engines do. Since they are not always on, just in Condition Red situations, in the event of a surprise (or maybe even WS 0) the power pack must be brought on line. I suggest one turn.

By Stephen Brackett (Brak) on Saturday, October 12, 2002 - 04:46 pm: Edit

http://www.geocities.com/stbrak/Ship.html?1034455250123

Had some trouble posting this my HTML skills are very rusty

This is the ship I was trying to describe yesterday

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, October 12, 2002 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Stephen Brackett:

While there are lots of PFs that have FX phasers, or even FA+L phasers, the only PF (actually in the game) that I can think of that has wider than an FA arc for a disruptor is the Tholian PF (a concession to the general concept that the Tholians were very good with small units). All other direct-fire non-phaser heavy weapons are pretty much restricted to the FA arc. The odds that (even if your proposal was being considered) it would fly with an FX arc just because you are mounting it on the front of the center warp engine like the disruptors mounted on the pylons of the Lyran ships are somewhat less than zero. Lyrans do not mount disruptors on their engines (they do mount them on the center engine pylon), and PF engines are not mounted on pylons. So it is questionable whether you would be able to mount a disruptor there in any case.

And in any case I am not interested in starting an arms race to redesign PFs to have improved heavy weapons firing arcs, even if it is accomplished by exchanging a heavy weapon for a phaser-1.

What next? A new Variant of the Romulan Centurion that replaces two of the plasma-F torpedoes with phaser-1s?

By Stephen Brackett (Brak) on Saturday, October 12, 2002 - 06:32 pm: Edit

SSP,
OK, just going with the triad pattern of the larger Lyran ships. Was trying to present a possible PF that might fix the perceived problem with the Bobcat without making the ship larger. It also loses an APR as well, figured it was more balanced.
Arms Race? Yeah I've noticed that tendancy here.

Centurion with more Ph-1s? Nah, but maybe suicide R launcher*S*

By Stephen Brackett (Brak) on Saturday, October 12, 2002 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Corrected version

http://www.geocities.com/stbrak/FerralPF.JPG

By Ken Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 08:56 am: Edit

I just had an Idea for the Lyran PF "power pack." A 2pt booster Pack on the Imp. Works just like warp booster packs.

By Stephen Brackett (Brak) on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 10:31 am: Edit

sorry about the bad link

http://www.geocities.com/stbrak/

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 11:33 am: Edit

Ken: Cool idea but every one will want one. The Lyran Power Pack gives the Lyrans something good that others can't really use because the Lyran hull design allows a good place to put one. The other races are left with the idea of slapping a wart some where on the hull. While I like the idea of an Impulse Booster there isn't any reason every body couldn't just copy it. And that would put the Lyrans back in the frying pan.

Stephen: I rather like that design. It would have been nice to keep that APR. That way it would solve the L-PF situation (maybe).

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Ken, Loren:

Making a powerpack composed of impulse engines would create an entirely new technology, not be based on existing technology. None of the Lyran powerpacks have engines, only power. So, you're talking about adding an engine, which seems entirely too complex when all that is needed is power.

While warp booster packs arguably do the same thing with warp power, warp power can at least be used for movement. Your impulse engines can do nothing but provide power, so why pay for impulse engines when APR will do?

If you want to reduce the point cost of the powerpack, and have increased damage, just make any APR hit count as 2 hits or roll a D6 (or whatever). Of course, this also isn't consistent with Lyran powerpack technology.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Marc. I think you missunderstand me. An impules booster pack has it own coolness but I don't think it is the right thing. Please look closer at my post. I'm saying that a two APR pack is more in line with what is needed if extra power is what is needed. A battery will add the problems of the great level of extra options that one more point of reserve power allows. My previous post dated Oct. 12, 3:39pm states how I think it should work.

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Actually, If the Lyran Bobcat's impulse engines were put in a "tri-hull" pylon. You would have room for two APR where the impulse are currently located on the SSD.

Now add a FX arc P-3 to the impulse pylon, and you have a 'product improved' Bobcat for the Y183 fighter improvements.

The two APR power pack would be for existing Bobcats without the impulse pylon and it's p-3.