Another Bobcat-I idea would be to add an overload-only UIM system. With two disruptors, the Bobcat benefits more than any other PF from the fixed cost-per-unit/PF of a UIM. This improved fire control would make the 2xDis (R10) worth their weight.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, August 10, 2009 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Suggest a 1-shot OL UIM. Kick it in, it works but auto-burns out.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, August 10, 2009 - 09:19 pm: Edit

Yes, just what we need. A ship with 4 Juggernaught racks. And two sets of reloads.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, August 10, 2009 - 09:27 pm: Edit

We won't get into the E-racks.

(or full and double-space juggernaughts)

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 06:43 pm: Edit

And Juggerpack seeking shuttles.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Friday, August 21, 2009 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Another thought on a Bobcat-I is to add another 2 swing points of EW. This helps its power crunch with teh two disruptors and doesn't necessitate a new SSD. Perhaps it coincides with the introduction of X-ships.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, August 21, 2009 - 03:09 pm: Edit

That would have to be a cross-the-board sort of thing, not just a Lyran thing.

The cat would be out of the bag, as it were.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 21, 2009 - 03:45 pm: Edit

I agree with John Trauger on this one. Also, I oppose giving PFs any more inherent EW capabilities than they already possess. This would come too close to "X-tech PFs". And SVC has been pretty clear that X-tech PFs were not going to happen.

Andrew Harding's suggestion from 9 August for a "trimaran" Lynx with 3 2-box engines and one additional phaser-3, or Marc's suggestion from 10 August for upgrading the ph-3s on the current Lynx to phaser-2s both are improvements to the Lyran PF but still are clearly within PF tech parameters. Additional free EW capability is far more problematical, IMO.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, August 21, 2009 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Replicating and upscaling the ECM Jammer pod tech that fighters use could be adapted to Lyran PFs (who normally don't have a decent ECM dohicky).

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, August 21, 2009 - 06:39 pm: Edit

Like I said, just letting the Lyran Disruptors have range 15 would be enough.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Friday, August 21, 2009 - 06:44 pm: Edit

r15 Disruptors FTW. Maybe with a 1-shot UIM as well.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, August 21, 2009 - 06:50 pm: Edit

You mean allowing PF DF weapon ranges to extend to 15 and/or allowing all disruptor-armed PF to have a 1-shot UIM.

Lyran PF aren't likely to get any goodies for themselves that won't be shared by other similar PF types.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, August 21, 2009 - 08:15 pm: Edit

Why not?

The view of many is that the Lyrans need a teensy upgrade.

And this one lets the current SSDs be used.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 21, 2009 - 11:55 pm: Edit

WHY are people so insistent on using the same SSD? A new Lyran PF with a different SSD is a good thing.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 06:50 pm: Edit

The main reason that the L-PF can't receive a "general Disruptor upgrade", is the fact that they'll share it 100% with the Klingons. There is no reason why they shouldn't.

Even if they developted it while the ISC cut off the Lyrans from the Klingons, if the Klingons knew about it, they'd dispatch an X-ship to cross ISC lines, just to get some improved technology for their PFs.

Once the GW starts, the Lyrans and Klingons are WAY co-mingled to share technology. It'd be like the Kzinti's developing a drone advancement and not sharing with the Feds.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 07:14 pm: Edit

I've got nothing against the Klingons getting it after a year or two, and the Kzintis and Orions a year or two after that. But as both of them also have other systems (drones) in which to invest R&D, and as neither's fleet doctrine is so based around substandard casual PFs, I don't think they'll use it so extensively.

Not sure why a new SSD is a good thing unless you just want to bump up the page count. I'm already running out of shelf space.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 08:02 pm: Edit

Most of the G1's in service only have a single disruptor, so it shouldn't cause much of a problem.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 09:21 am: Edit

Scott, you are assuming that the Klinks/ WYN/ Kzin choose to invest the $ to upgrade their PF.

What I am proposing is that the Lyrans were the only ones who chose to upgrade their disruptors on PFs.

Like no one ever chose to copy PPDs, have cloaks in general service and such... I mean really, do you suppose that the Kzinti are tech stupid so that they can't copy maulers and cloaks? Heck, a cloak is the perfect accompanyment to a Drone Bombardment ship. Go, launch the load and if you detect ships coming, cloak...

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 11:04 pm: Edit

MCG, little problem for the Kzinti, first you have to capture a cloakable ship (Orion mainly, but Romulan during Operation Remus), get it back to the Hegemony (Rom through Fed space during the war?), break it down correctly (to reproduce all its parts), then tool up (exhaustion?) and add to ships (overload supply lines?).

But yea, it would be cool for DB ships...

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, August 24, 2009 - 12:13 pm: Edit

Cloakable ship?

Bah. ANY ship could use a cloak, note that the darn Roms slapped cloaks on a zillion Kestrels and such.

The issue is the tech slosh and cost.

Like the Orions specifically built their ships for cloaks? Nah, they just happened to be willing to pay to install the ones they capture.

I have proposed it in the past, captured Orion ships with cloaks should NEVER be resold by the government. If I was the navy admiral, I can think of a zillion roles for these things.

Like:
-Stocking supply depots (referenced in CL39)
-DB missions from DEEP inside the enemy lines
-Picket ship (a LR with a special sensor and a cloak would be excellent and would be hard to pick off compared to a ship that can't outrun a fast/ X ship or cloak)
-Collier
-Convoy escort. lurk and then when the Dread pirate MaJiC strikes UNCLOAK and anchor...

etc

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Monday, August 24, 2009 - 12:23 pm: Edit

Just my two cents, but I would think the first thing the Lyrans would upgrade would be the Ph-2s to Ph-1s. UIMs, increased disruptor ranges, and additional swing points do raise the question of why other races would not do the same. UIMs and Range 15 disruptors, in particular, are in no way unique to the Lyrans, and if the Lyrans could do it, its a safe assumption the Klingons would too.

A PF with two Disrs, 2 Ph-1s and 2 Ph-3s isn't out of bounds, would be better than what they have now, and would make the PF much more useful outside of range 3. To me, the thing that has always made the Lyran PF sort of poor after about Y180 was the absence Ph-1s, and lack of anything like a drone rack or an ESG. ESGs are not going to happen and adding a drone rack would create a copy of the G1B and be kind of un-Lyran, so in my mind, that leave the Ph-1s as the obvious choice.

What I've always wondered is, would the Lyrans have contemplated buying Klingon PFs? They used Klingon fighters, so would they have not considered a PF like the G1 or G1B to compliment their own Bobcat production? Mixed Lyran-Klingon flotillas did happen occasionally (see Operation Cavalry)... could that have eventually lead to the actual exchange of PFs? Just thinkin' out loud.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Monday, August 24, 2009 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Jeremy, it's been said by SVC that the Lyrans can't have P-1s on their PFs because that would be an upgrade first applied to ship hulls with P-2s, and we know that wasn't always done. So, I think upgrading the P-3s to P-2s is easy and consistent with precedent on hulls.

The UIM thingy, I can see the Lyrans finding the expense worth it while the Klingons do not because they have two disruptors vs. one. May not be worth the cost for one disruptor (much like UIM upgrades on hulls with few disruptors - the upgrade costs the same and may not be worth it).

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, August 24, 2009 - 12:47 pm: Edit

Jeremy,

1) there are a lot of ships that probably could better use those expensive P1 gyros

2) I would propose range 12 disruptors. And the reason no one else did it was cost and limited usage. Only the lyrans were so dependent on the disruptor to the exclusion of any seekers (plus the Tholians, but they can use their phaser caps while Disr power is use it or lose it...)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, August 24, 2009 - 03:16 pm: Edit

2) I would propose range 12 disruptors. And the reason no one else did it was cost and limited usage. Only the lyrans were so dependent on the disruptor to the exclusion of any seekers

...and the thundering cries of "MY RACE TOO!" will completely drown out any logical argument that hands the Lyrans a bennie that other races would want and "logically" should have.

Playing with range is especialy dangerous. If you need an example, look up the old, bad X2 rules from the 80s.

You either need a bennie that other races won't want to use or a bennie that has an airtight "lyrans only" argument to it.

A 1-shot UIM if most beneficial to a 2-disruptor PF, but least beneficial to a 1-disruptor PF if it isn't just a 1-shot UIM, it's an auto-burnout UIM. Make it standard on the Lyran PF, available to other diruptor using race PFs as a CO, say for 3 points, with only one possible to purchase. (if you really want to be nice to the Lyran, phrase the rules so it is the CO that can only be bought once and allow the Lyran PF to buy the CO. The Lyran PF would have 2 1-shot UIMs and therefore get one free UIM-assisted shot)

Alternately, upgrading P-3s to P-2s can be construed as a Lyran only thing and would provoke few "MY RACE TOO" cries.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 24, 2009 - 03:48 pm: Edit

I don't know. I like the "upgrade the phaser-3s to phaser-2s" idea. It doesn't require a rules change like giving the Lyran PFs UIM or range-12 would. It doesn't run into the issue of major Lyran warships still carrying phaser-2s. And you could technobabble your way through the "MY RACE TOO" issue by saying that the Lyran PF had just enough extra space to accommodate (with difficulty) an upgrade to a slightly larger phaser. The Tholian (to consider the PF most like the Lyran) and other ph-3 armed PFs were already "packed to the gills" and there wasn't enough room to accommodate such an upgrade without sacrificing something more important.