Stellar Shadows Journal Proposal for Mad Scientists Workshop.

This proposal is the "flip side" to the Simplified fighters topic" already open.

instead of designing a whole new generation of fighters, the existing designs (those that use drone seeking weapons, at least) can be used to mount this series of new drone rail weapons.


Direct Fire charged weapons mounted on fighter drone rails, limited by the fighters ability to launch drones. (see rule J4.24) which (paraphrased) basically means that if a fighter can launch 1 drone per turn, or 2 drones per turn provided both fired at same target and that one or both drones were type VI dog fight drones.

For this proposal, assume that smaller phaser 3 pods are to be considered the same as a type VI drone, and larger direct fire weapons (such as phaser 1s, or Photons or Disrupters etc.) replace type I drones.

Advantages:

Reduced paper work and tracking drone stacks.
immediate resolution of attacks.
existing system of deck crews (and associated actions such as reloading fighters) remain in force.

Disadvantages:
No drones. eliminates certain racial characteristics that normally define who the races differn in combat. (ie Kzintis are noted for drone use).

Makes certain kinds of tactics obsolete (such as T bombs used to destroy drone stacks).

Requires a major expansion of the Drones rule sections for fighter use as these "direct fire charged munitions" are the same general size and purpose of drones... except that they are not seeking weapons, perse.

This is a major change to the way SFBs works, but again, this is a stellar Shadows proposal, not a proposed change to exsiting SFBs rules.

instead of designing a whole new generation of fighters, the existing designs (those that use drone seeking weapons, at least) can be used to mount this series of new drone rail weapons.

Some restrictions apply:

1. each "cannister" weapon, (such as a photon torpedo) is assumed to be in staisis, is a standard war head, and each "drone cannister" holds a single photon. no added charges.

2. Each "cannister" weapon has 1 use. once fired, it is marked off the SSD sheet records.

3. Each "cannister" weapons is assumed to be "ready to fire" and does not require charging.

4. each "cannister" weapon replaces 1 type I drone.

5. No "double space" "cannister" weapon exist. either use 2xsingle space weapons, or the rails go empty.

6. Phaser 3 pods replace each type VI drone, (disregarding the limits on the number of phaser 3 pods a fighter normally carries.)

All "cannister" weapons and phaser Pods have a FA firing arc.

comments?

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 06:31 pm: Edit

Sign me up for F-18C's with four photons. I can't see any balance implications.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 07:43 pm: Edit

Well, you could only use 1 Photon "cannister" per turn... so a F-18C loaded with 4 such Photon thingees would require 4 turns to launch/deploy all four photons.

IIRC, a F-18C also has 2 special rails... so we might want to consider what could be used on those rails... if (and I am speculating here, not formally modifying the proposal) you were to carry 2 phaser pods on those rails... you could ideally use the rule J4.24 firing rates to add a single phaser 3 pod attack to each photon torpedo... I know its only 3-4 points of damage at minimum range... but it still adds something (depending on the range bracket).

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 08:15 pm: Edit

I should again point out that a disruptor is not equal to a photon with the same firing rate...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Jim, there are a couple of fixes for that... the first, most popular and IMO "fairest" way is different BPVs assigned for Photons vs Disrupter charged thingees.

The second fix, which is more problematical... and probably will be declared "dead Horse" or "this way lies madness" will be to require such weapons need to be freshly charged just prior to launch... which takes us to the problem with fighter ready racks and the difficulty that even a Fed CVA would have trying to charge 48 photons all at the same time on 12 of Andrews F-18C's (each with 4 Photon Cannisters).

IMO, this Photon vs Disrupter argument has been around for decades. The Steves already know how to handle it.

By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 04:23 am: Edit

Odd thought on the Photon/Disruptor thing. Haven't worked it out, just thought I'd throw it out there for consideration. Have the Photons be Prox-fuzed only, and the Disruptor charges be standard (Or maybe Overloaded?). Puts the damage on a more equal track and keeps Fed Fighters at long range drone chucking type strike runs and Disruptor fighters playing more like Hydrans wanting to get up close and personal. Or maybe that range 9-12 bracket.

It's late and I haven't thought it through. I'll probably look at this tomorrow and wonder what the hell I was thinking.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 11:18 pm: Edit

Jonathan, not following your thought process on that one... let me know what it was you were thinking...

IIRC proximity photons have a minimum range of 10 hexes... its an auto miss at close ranges.

Some other comments:

1. Direct fire weapons cannisters may not be used on scatter packs.

Drones have their own seeking systems and an EW component... they can "seek targets" under the rules (provided all the conditions are met: drone control channels, lock on, etc)

The direct firre weapons cannisters are "tied into" the targeting systems on the fighters... and can't target anything independently. Admin shuttles likewise don't have the capacity to handle the load in processing the targeting information required by the cannisters.

no scatter pack fighter loads either... either use drones or forget about the cannisters.

2. Chain Reactions... DF weapons cannisters DO react in the same way drones do in cases where Chain Reaction is an issue.

3. the DF weapons cannisters do require a minimal amount of power to maintain the staisis field holding the weapons charge... it is far less than the energy cost of even a single phaser 3. no change to either phasers or movement of any existing statistic of the drone fighters used.

By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 05:53 am: Edit

Actually my thought process was to make the Disruptor and Photon charges relatively equal in game effect. If you had normal photons, or overloaded ones on the fighters, they'd play like stingers. Get to range zero and just crunch a CA. They'd be far more effective than the disruptor fighters as had been stated. But when I play Fed CVs and fighters (Or Kzinti for that matter) I tend to keep my fighters back, towards the carrier and just salvo drones, land, reload, launch, and salvo again as best as I can.

So I was thinking, have the Fed Photon Charge be a prox-fuzed torp. Minimum range of 9 (Max of 30). Does 4 damage, comparable to Disruptor shots at anything but point blank, and keeps the same tactical feel of taking long range pot shots. Only question is if the computer on a Fighter can manage the long range. I think so, since they can run Drone Bombardment with type III-XX long lances. Least ones like the A6 could as I recall.

Then you get the Disruptor Fighter. Rather than it being a weaker or equal to the Federation Fighter, have it be different. With those Phaser-2s I tended to try and get my Zorans fairly close anyway to help take advantage of that. Almost made it worth it to leave them out there as roving Phasers. Debately not as good as a Stinger in sheer crunch, but a bit longer range to let it stand off just outside ADD range and keep plinkin' away, eh it worked for me.

So I was thinking the Klingon (And Lyran, LDR, Seltorian, Vudar, some Orions...) Fighters would have standard, or overloaded Disruptor Canisters instead. Give them more of a Stinger related fighter ability. I mean, yeah, overloaded disruptor is only 10 at most, right? But if the Disruptor Charge was hitting for 10-6 and the Photon was hitting for 4 (Granted with longer range and thus probably better survival odds), might make for an interesting trade.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 08:35 pm: Edit

Jonathan, IIRC the idea of making photons and disrupters "more equal" is on the auto reject list.

Second, I believe that fighter weapons are limited to 15 hexes max range.

Other than that I guess there are no objections... as Jim noted in the other topic, it is Stellar Shadows...

By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Dunno if it's a "More equal" thing instead of a "just different" thing. I phrased it that way, which I probably should not have. But if both Photons and Disruptors had standard charges the Photons do become Superior. Sure, they'd take 2 turns to charge, but with landing, launch, and Deck Crew rates that's probably how long it'd take anyway. The Photon would get more damage, and it's close enough rangewise with direct fire fighters that the Photon's innate inaccuracy vs the Disruptors better accuracy becomes more of a wash. The Faster Fire Rate for disruptors won't matter because the limitation on speed is likely to be launch, waiting for fire control, closing the range, firing, turning around, landing, deck crew operations, etc. Roughly the same speed. Only difference is the Photon Fighters would only be at range 2 at closest. Unless you get overloads going.

Just wanted them to play a bit different than close to 2/0 and fire.


Hmm, back to the drawing board.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 09:57 pm: Edit

Equal effectiveness should not be a goal here.

The Feds depend on their fighters more than other races, who have PFs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Is there a DF drone topic somewhere?

I seem to recall there were some people working on one?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 10:00 am: Edit

Loren, I think the Federation Command Forum guys are handling that one. So far I have stayed out of that one.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 10:01 am: Edit

DFD was actually an optional SFB rule at one point.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 10:18 am: Edit

Paul, we addressed that earlier... IIRC it was in Supplement #2 (Fighters and Shuttles) and hasnt been republished or included in the Masters Rule book, I beleive.

This is the 4th time it has been mentioned, and SPP did not respond to a direct question pertainng to it.

Not sure what status the DFD has.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 10:56 am: Edit

Well, I'll check out the Fed Com DFD discussion. I have an idea but I should check whats being done first.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 05:35 pm: Edit

I guess one issue that needs to be discussed is if these "cannister" weapons (stored Photons or Disrupters or plasma torpedos" need to be charged on board ship prior to loading on fighters... of if they can be stock piled like drones ready to launch.

In the "Real World" Navy carriers have bombs and missles that do not need tobe charged with warp power (or anything like that)... so perhaps these "drone substitute" direct fire energy weapon cannisters could be stored the same way drones are.

(imagine a Fed CVA with 300 drone spaces of photon torpedos! added to the "plumbing" required to operate A-10 or A-20 fighters... you could see fed fighter squadrons toting 60+ phtons into battle (48 on each squadron of F-18Cs atleast 12 on the A-10s... and G.O.D. (game overworked designer) knows how many a F-14D could have...)

It would bring battles back to where some Federation purists have long maintained they should be... the federation player pawing over the game map looking for opportunities to pump unlimited numbers of Photon Torpedos into various enemy ships, bases and attrtion units!

(of course, to be fair... those Klingon purists are going to be toting their own supplies of cannisterd Disrupters!)

Could be fun.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Lets look at a couple of examples:

Type	Size	Spd	Phaser	Drones	Dmg	Other Weapons	BPV	Year	DFR	Prod	Ref
F-18C	1	15	2xP-3-FA	4xI 2xSpecial	10	-	12	183	3*	J	F5
F-18Cdf	1	15	2xP-3-FA	-	10	4xPhtn Cannisters&2xPh-3-FA-Pods	12	183	3*	-	-

the first entry is the existing F-18C model fighters, the second is Andrews F-18C that substitutes 4xPhoton Torped Cannisters and 2xPhaser 3 FA phaser pods (single shot).

Generally, I'm assuming that the photon Cannisters are the same BPV as type 1 Drones would be (and no adjustment being made at this point for speed upgrades.)

Note the proposed firing limits on the cannisters match the exiting launch limits on drones... either 1 Photon Cannister per turn or 1 phton cannister and 1 phaser 3 pod may be fired at the same time if both are fired at the same target.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 01:18 am: Edit

It's not _my_ F-18C! I was just noting the armament the original post implied (and I was actually short two photons). A photon canister is definitely superior to a drone.

Looking at existing fighters with direct fire armament, the best unrestricted fighter is the Stinger-2 which for 10 BPV mounts a gatling and two one-shot fusion beams. To approximate their ranged firepower with other races requires only a single one-shot photon, a pair of one-shot disruptors or a pair of bolt-only D torps. Mounting four times that is excessive, I thought my sarcasm was obvious.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 05:46 pm: Edit

You're welcome to any part of the proposal, or none of it.

Again, i was "throwing it out there" for people to comment on.

the only quibble I have with your comments was the part comparing it to "existing fighters with direct fire armament". You're comparing apples to oranges.

This is a SSJ suggestion... IMO there is very little chance that existing direct fire armed fighter will be able to compete with any thing armed with heavy weapon cannisters... its like showing up at a gun fight with a single shot 22 cal target rifle when your opponents all have full body armor, IR vision equipment, fully Automatic assault rifles and can call in CAS and mortors and howitzers for indirect Artillery support.

Even Hydran Stinger 2s would be hard pressed agains any fighters armed with the proposed cannisters.

The proposal is not meant for "normal play" in the SFU... its a stellar shadows thing, and needs to be treated as such.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 07:45 pm: Edit

So why did you give it a BPV of 12?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 09:31 pm: Edit

Jim, what I posted in the comments was:

Quote: "Generally, I'm assuming that the photon Cannisters are the same BPV as type 1 Drones would be (and no adjustment being made at this point for speed upgrades.)"

We havent discussed what these direct fire weapons cannisters cost... so I just posted what the F-18C would be before the speed upgrades.

I could have changed it to TBD (to be determined) but I didnt make any other provision... perhaps I should have.

But it is a good question... what kind of BPV adjustment should be made for such heavy weapon cannisters?

It seems like the Photon should be worth two cannistered disrupter charges... but that only gives us a relative value... not a defined status.

Is 1 BPV per Photon Cannister too low? that would make the disrupter cannisters worth 0.5 BPV each...

IIRC, a fast drone speed upgrade to speed 32 drones is 1 BPV for each drone upgraded.... would a fast type 1 be about equal to what a cannister photon is?

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 10:34 pm: Edit

Mounting Photons on every type-I capable rail and flying remotely might produce a fighter that can hit with a narrow salvo of 48 points at twelve hexes. Or it might not, depending on what other rules are permitted. Such variation makes it hard to estimate at a BPV.

Even for SSJ, I feel these designs need fighter-appropriate capabilities and BPVs. One single-use photon and a BPV of ten perhaps. Or one photon that the fighter can recharge itself in two turns and a higher cost.

Guessing at BPV for Photon charges I'd guess ~3 points over a drone for the first shot (more if the fighter keeps any drones whatsoever since then it's a straight addition to one-turn burst rather than a replacement), ~1 point over a drone for the first reload not usable on the same turn, par for any extras that replace drones, ~1 point for any one-shot Ph-3 canisters that don't interfere with photon firing rate. So 18 for the listed F-18cdf. That is very much a guess and would need to be refined by playtesting.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 10:46 pm: Edit

You probably don't want to spend any time on fighters recharging their heavy weapons as that is on the Auto-Reject List.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 26, 2009 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Andrew, I'm not sure we should allow remote flying ability for these photon cannisters...pick any technobaubble excuse you like, but IMO it is far too powerful, even for stellar shadows (unless we need it to handle the Zorks?!?

I think letting a fighter unload 1 photon (or other hevey weapon cannister) per turn is enough fire power and gives such fighters a significant "opportunity cost" inthat the range limits of fighter mounted photons puts such fighters within lethal range of any enemy forces...and encourages the enemy to kill the fighters before too many photons could be used!

I could see placing a limit on such heavy weapon cannister fighters... but I can't see any arguments that would be compelling enough to cause a change in the Auto Reject status on such fighers.

It might be a bit complicated, but you do have the frame work for a formula that might work.

+3PBV for the first Cannister, +1 for each additional cannister... no scatter pack or RC fighters (thus no salvos possible) all on top of the original BPV cost of the fighter.

I'd guess the formula for disrupters would thus be 1.5 for the first cannister, and 0.75 for each additional cannister.

And I stipulate that all of this is subject to playtesting to correct any BPV imbalances.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, February 28, 2009 - 10:43 pm: Edit

Lets repost the example with the increased BPVs:

Type	Size	Spd	Phaser	Drones	Dmg	Other Weapons	BPV	Year	DFR	Prod	Ref
F-18C	1	15	2xP-3-FA	4xI 2xSpecial	10	-	12	183	3*	J	F5
F-18Cdf	1	15	2xP-3-FA	-	10	4xPhtn Cannisters&2xPh-3-Pods	19	183	3*	-	-

Notes:
df, is "Direct Fire"

the BPV for theF-18Cdf in is increased by 3 BPVs for the first cannister, and +1 for the remaining 3 photon cannisters. the 2 phaser 3 pods, adds a further 1 BPV (or about 0.5 for each phser 3 pod).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 08, 2011 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Well, its been a while since there has been any activity on this topic.

just to clarify things, the proposed F-18Cdf with 4 photon torpedo cannisters and 2xph3 pods (in excess of the normal limit of 1 such pod for a size class 1 fighter) would have a firing limit of no more than 1 photon cannister and 1 phaser3 pod could be fired in any turn, not closer than 8 impulses if fired over a "turn break"

There would be no limit on the built in FXx2xPhaser-3s firing ability beyond the published rule for the F-18C.

again, this is a mad scientist workshop idea for Stellar Shadows Journal, not a proposed change to "real" star Fleet history.