This idea is not mine, but I am transferring it from the (E) Weapons topic "(FP1.6XX) FIRING AT PLASMA TORPEDOES., Recharge on the Fly"

Previous messages:

Marc Baluda

<I>If you want some kind of merger/strengthening concept, you might consider launched plasma torpedoes merging into a larger class. It might be interesting to see some SC4 ships or PFs, perhaps even plasma fighters, fire some torps that merged into a heavy torp - it would give smaller plasma ships, PFs and fighters a new tactical dimension. There is precedence (admittedly very limited) in terms of shotgunned torps merging back together into the original warhead if a torp is bolted (although the torps can't merge together in seeking mode - extra torps are lost). Perhaps a derivation of shotgunned torps.

I'm not sure this is a good idea, by the way, but I think it a better option than phasers for the reason Dale mentioned. Perhaps propose this for K2 as originally deployed as a way of PFs aggregating firepower. </I>

-------------------------------------------

Terence Sean Terry O'Carroll

<I>Marc, in the case of a bolt the torps aren't "merged together". In a bolt, the torpedo(es) are detonated in the tube, and if it's a shotgun or enveloper the excess energy is simply lost (I don't know why engineering-wise, maybe it's a safety feature because the tube can't handle that much energy and some is simply vented).

But I do like your reverse shotgun idea, it could be fun. </I>

-------------------------------------------
Marc Baluda

Terence, the plasma Fs in a shotgun don't bolt as an F, they bolt as the original torpedo (G, S or R). That's my point on some merger, and excess arming energy for the shotgun is admittedly lost.

-------------------------------------------

Me

<I>It's an intereting idea: a smulator race covered in F-torps. say 5-6 on a cruiser.

2x F join to become a S
3-4x F join to become a R

This hypothetical race would get this flexability at the cost of being unable to envelop or shotgun (F-torps don't do those things) and a moderately higher energy cost (a S-torp would cost 2-2-6 to arm)

Presumably torps would be combined at the moment of launch and at no other time.

Pseudoes would need the ability to combine as well.

The questin would be whether bolts could combine. </I>

-------------------------------------------

Jeff Wile

<I>John Trauger, that could work.

Better on a new simulator race than an existing one. picture an ISC cruiser with PPDs and the ability to "hype" a plasma torpedo at the same time... not a good vision IMO! </I>

-------------------------------------------

Me

<I>The ISC wouldn't be able to stack its lateral F-torps to launch anything large at a SC4- target because they would still not be able to launch multiple F-torps at such a target, even if the torps are going join to form a single torp moments later. They could surprise a PF with a lateral S-torp however.

I think The roms and gorns would be the big winners if this ability were democratized to existing plasma races. It would give a standard Gorn or Romulan CA the ability to toss off three S-torps (or 4 from a Gorn BCH), giving them more long-range firepower. </I>


Discussion now continues.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 10:39 pm: Edit

I wonder if it would make sense to "average" the endurance of the stacked plasma torpedos?!?

Say you had the first plasma torpedo that had moved 9 hexes (assuming that you can stack plasmas at such a point...and another ship with a plasma F torpedo ready to launch, launches it insuch a way to "stack" the two torpedos... the resulting stacked torpedo becomes not only a better type, but the endurance would be 9 turns+1/2 equals 5.0 impulses (or hexes of movement, depending on how you want to phrase the terminology.

or you could limit such "stacked torpedos" to a single step, and the endurance of the earliest plasma determines endurance.

I'd guess there are a couple of approahces one could take.

By Terence Sean Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 02:38 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Terence, the plasma Fs in a shotgun don't bolt as an F, they bolt as the original torpedo (G, S or R). That's my point on some merger, and excess arming energy for the shotgun is admittedly lost.

---

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Terence, you have exactly an S bolt: G= 2xFs, S= 3xFs, R= 5xFs. In a bolt the excess energy for arming the shotgun (over the normal cost of the G, S or R) is lost. The G, S or R torps being shotgunned as F torps cannot be merged and fired in seeking mode as a G, S or R - they can only be bolted or fired as F torps (and then there are targetting limitations). That's why I think the precedence of merging F torps is limited (and arguably isn't really a merger - it's a bolt).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I wonder if it would make sense to "average" the endurance of the stacked plasma torpedos?!?

You CAN, but it's a massive KISS violation and a play balance nightmare. The moment you allow plasmas to stack/merge past launch, you have to not only reconcile possible differences in warhead and endurance, but any phaser damage to one or other torp as well.

Just say no.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 02:27 pm: Edit

John,

I was thinking that it might just make things somewhat easier... every time you "stack" plasma, you treat the resulting "super stacked Plasmas" as a newly launched torpedo, with endurance clocks reset to the current hex.

But I won't insist... I wouldn't want to be accused of being difficult!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Well yeah you CAN do that, but the proposal also allowes a merged torpedo to grow to a larger size. join 2 F-torps you get a S, 3 or 4 and you get a R.

the most permissive reading of your suggestion allows me to take a F-torp on its last legs, merge another on its last legs and get a fresh S-torp, then when the S-torp is on its last legs, merge again to get a fresh R-torp.

Then we talk about mergin sabot with non sabot and merging with envelopers with non-envelopers. We either get a maze of rules for doing so or a maze of can/can't rules.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 04:27 pm: Edit

John,

I can see advantages both ways... on the defensive side, keeping the torpedo's endurance limited to the same 32 impulse period of the original plasma torpedo gives a smaller "window" for the stacked torpedo to operate in.

Offensively, being able to "reset the clock" (so to speak) keeps a perishable seeking weapon in play longer and avoids having it "expire" at the end of 32 impulses.

As far as mixing sabot and non sabot or with envolopers... I say forget it... stacking plasma torpedos only should work with "vanilla" plasma torps. you want the bells and whistles of Sabots or envellopers, you'll have to pay more for it (in terms of energy costs) and at the cost of being able to "stack" them.

Thus no mess and no maze of rules and exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions etc.

but thats just my $0.02 worth.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 05:29 pm: Edit

Then you have players asking:

Why can't I merge two sabot torps?

Why can't merge two envelopers?

We still have the issue of how to resolve phaser damage to one or both mergin torps...unless phaser damage is also erased by the merger.

The real simple solution is to only allow mergers at point of launch between identically-armed F-torps.

Now consider what has just happened when you merge two neraly-dead torps and ger an intact replacement.

2 F-torps with 5 points left merge to form an intact S-torp 10 points of warhead strength that might run another 5 hexes suddenly becomes 30 points of warhead that's going to run another 25. That's not just good, that's insanely good.

I launch 4 F-torps at a ship. They merge into two intact S-torps near the end of their endurance, then the S-torps merge again into a R-torp after that. That's about a 70-hex range torp and an assurred damage of 60 out to 25 hexes away, 50 to a maximum of 50 hexes.

And if phaser damage is erased in a merger, those damage figures could be VERY assurred if plasma merges during movement and plasmas are allowed to merge before impact.

That's passable for a simulator race, but--yikes. Never in the "real" game-world. It doesn't add tactical plasma options. It rewrites plasma tatics wholesale.

I'm sure there are really nasty exploits I haven't thought of yet as well.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Tough noogies.



If the rules get published it becomes SPPs problem to explain it (poor man!)

but to be true, it is insanely good and probably best for the simulator race only option.

You could consider the "phased in approach" where the stacked plasma become available year A, the stacked Sabot plasmas available year A+5 and the Stacked Envelloper plasmas become available year A+15.

or make it a 2nd or 3 generation X ship technology thing.

Or, just say no which is my original suggestion... let SPP or SVC decide if Sabots or envellopers can "stack".

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 09:19 pm: Edit

If this were seriously considered as a new rule, you should probably use 2xF=G, 3xF=S, 5xF=R just like the shotgun rules.

On range, I would think you would use the range of the oldest plasma as the marker for the merged/stacked plasma.

On phaser damage, it carries over from the F torps into the new torps i.e. 13 points of phaser damage to one of the merged/stacked torps plus 7 to another equals 20 total damage (or 10 points of warhead reduction) to the merged G torp. This data is already tracked and would be easy to deal with.

I would think you could only use the same type to stack - sabot on sabot, etc.

F torps can't be enveloped, so that's dead.

Or you limit everything to simultaneous launch from the same hex and everything above is moot. I think allowing different ships in the same hex to merge torps would be interesting tactically, and give small plasma, including PFs and fighters, some interesting options (although perhaps this is too powerful if you allow multiple hulls to merge - your five assault fighters that are part of two squadrons would be able to produce an R, unless you make a special squadron rule or some other limit on fighters/PFs).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Fair enough. I look at rules and ask myself how I'd phrase them to minimize overhead. I recognize that this limits how creative I can be with a rule or concept.

By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 09:27 pm: Edit

Limitations breeds creativity.

The elegant point of an article on game design done by Mark Rosewater. Turn into the skid there and set those limitations and rules upon yourself.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 03:07 pm: Edit

I am aware of that, actually. You can take working within limits too far.

I consider the inherent complexit of SFb to a huge limit to future expansion simply because we're at the point where we can descend into mindless detail so I have a tendency to look harshly on anything that needs to be more complex than it needs to be.

By Jacob Karpel (Psybomb) on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Along those lines, I find myself agreeing with the "at launch or never" group. Also that it would have to be for a new (perhaps simulator) race, as allowing existing races to do so would cause unpleasant happenings with things like Romulan PFs.