This is what we came up with...
Modernize them to type-IM or F drones (Speed 20 or 32 depending on year, standard 3 turn endurance, 4 damage points to kill), upgrade the standard warhead to 8, enhanced to 14, super-enhanced to 20. Give the rack two reloads, still undecided about keeping the rack at five spaces or upping it to six spaces. Replace the rear Pl-Fs with P-racks on a one-for-one basis (that might change depending on the outcome of our tests).

By Douglas Jordan (Djordan) on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - 11:11 am: Edit

I'll keep it simple:

Can the echelon work as described in it's SFU description?

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - 11:17 am: Edit

Yes, but it's not as effective as keeping all the ISC ships in the same hex. The echelon was developed when ship explosions were catastrophic.

By Douglas Jordan (Djordan) on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Wow, so then do most ISC players keep them together and forgo the echelon?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - 12:55 pm: Edit

It depends on the situation. The superstack always has advantages in concentration of firepower. However, if you expect explosions, one superstack is still not great even with lesser explosion rules.

The echelon is still useful to keep the PPD units safe. I.e., you can still force the enemy to deal with the gunline vice the PPD units.

However, usually what you will see is a modified echelon. Instead of a pretty little spread, you will see two - maybe three - lesser superstacks.

One superstack will be the PPD ships. The other one or two superstacks will be the "gunline" ships. That way, you have your cake and eat it too.

Tactics also depend on the opponent. It's easier to form one mega superstack against Gorn and Roms since they are relatively ineffective at medium to long range - vice disrupter or photon races that can hurt the ISC at range.

Another interesting tactic is to superstack on the way in for the first pass, and then on the following turn have the "gunline" ships move slower than the "core" ships. You form sort of a reverse gunline to discourage pursuit of the bigger ships.

By Christopher Smith (Casmith518) on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Smaller squadron type fights can screw up the echelon tactic as well. I just played a game against 3 ISC ships FF, DD, and PPD strike cruiser. I lost, but I did cripple the DD which forced my opponent out of the echelon thought process. So you still have to have a plan when the echelon is not possible or drastically reduced in effectiveness.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Even when explosions had a reach of 3-4 hexes, I could not rationalize spreading my fleet out as far as traditional ISC tactics dictated. I decided that the collateral damage was worth the concentration of firepower.

I have experimented with tightening up the echelon formation where one hex separates a minimal gunline of three DDs/FFs. The rest of the gunline is filled in with PFs. If I have fighters, I position them between the gunline and the second rank.

It's worked fairly well the couple of times I've tried it.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Superstacks also were MUCH more vulnerable back when ships had so many tbombs that every map became a minefield...

So back then an echelon wasn't so bad.

I wrote a story about some of these issues and its on the BBS somewhere...

By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - 07:25 pm: Edit

I figure it's more useful in a campaign setting than a random action. In a campaign setting it does the one thing I really heard it was ment for. Protect the Larger/More Valuable ships. If you run it like its written out if the battle does go bad you can usually get the rear half of your ships away relatively unscathed. Of course unless you're really lucky with something like Sublight Disengagement you will almost always lose the front half.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Thursday, February 04, 2010 - 01:18 am: Edit

I've never really figured out the value of the ISC echelon. A superstacked enemy would happily paste the front line ship (or ships). In short order the rear echelon will become the front line, with the former front line becoming stragglers at best. Granted, the PPD ships are likely to be fully functional (with plenty of bulk to back it up), but without their smaller counterparts, they are far more vulnerable to secondary weapons, unless they turn away to bring their rear weapons to bear for defense, which only serves their opponents well (for reloading purposes).

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Thursday, February 04, 2010 - 02:11 am: Edit

Glenn
The thing is they'll be focusing their PPD on your heavy hitters so while you're degrading their defensive ability they're degrading your OFFENSIVE ability and that's a poor trade off with the ISC.
regards
Stacy

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, February 04, 2010 - 11:40 am: Edit

Sounds like the Echelon might work better in FC, where you can't superstack, than in SFB itself...

By Robert Grey (Tugger) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Heres another question for you all to chew on.
What is the optimal PPD / Plasma Ratio?
To many PPDs (think unsupported DN or CS) and you will get run over, to few, and your Gorn with more aggressive Plasma arcs.
If you have a 500 or 700 BPV fleet, how many PPDs should you have in there?

Max is 6 x PPD (yes, that follows ISC PPD restrictions)
DN, CS, (3xDD With Sabot)or (CL, 2xFF)or (SR, 2xFF)
That give a lot of direct fire, and a good chunk of phasers, and a fair chunk of F torps, maybe a pair of S's, but is it enough? Might have to sub out a ship for a scout platform.

A mid PPD arrangement might include
CC, CA (3 x PPD total) instead of the DN, CS. That leaves more points for support ships, allows you to have Sabot upgrade on those ships, and suddenly you can throw a lot of Plasma S in the face of anyone who wants to get fresh.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 05:25 pm: Edit

The answer deoends on the race.

Against a D + D race like klinks or kzinti, I'd max PPDs out and see if I can out-dance them. You want a scout for this fight.

Against a plasma race you have the option of fighting them as one of their own (plasma vs plasma) or as a DF race with a side-order of plasma. Gorns you might want more plasma to punish the overrun while Roms you might want more PPDs for punishing the cloak. A scout is optional here because of the free ECCM plasmas get but one might be useful against the roms

You want heavy plasma fighting races with heavy crunch or the tendency to overrun (Feds, Hydrans tholians and maybe lyrans).

One PPD in a fleet fight is often a joke. Do 2+ or 0. double or nothing.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 05:50 pm: Edit

The superstack was WAY more vulnerable back when ship explosion strength was so much more...

By Robert Grey (Tugger) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 06:03 pm: Edit

The question above is for a campaign, Diplomacy by Other Means. There is limited EW, with only Scout channels, WW, EM and Natural EW working.
Year is 181, with a discount of ships who originate in y 164 or earlier.

I have a ISC/Kzin mix, 66%/33%

Races I am nearest. Gorn/Fed (2/1 mix) and Kling/Tholian (2/1 mix)

I think a midrange mix of PPD/Plasma vs the Gorn Fed would be best, to put a clock on it, give me a good mid range attack, but lots of plasma to prevent overruns.

Vs the Kling/Thol, Plasma has very limited offensive value, but the PPD's should still be very effective.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 12:45 pm: Edit

Did I read your post right? Do scouts lend EW, but ships do not generate their own?

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Sunday, March 14, 2010 - 02:36 pm: Edit

I need a clarification on the PPD in reference to E11.63.

As I understand it, the PPD requires 4 points of energy over two turns E11.21. To hold the previously armed PPD it requires 2 points of energy E11.22. E11.63 states that previously armed PPD's or PPD's armed on the current turn can be overloaded by reserve energy. It further states that held PPD's can be overloaded during EA but in addition to holding energy.

So would it look like this;

Turn 1 = 4 pts
Turn 2 = 4 pts (now armed but not fired during turn)
Turn 3 = 2 pts holding in EA (not fired during turn)
Turn 4 = 2 pts to hold + 8 points if an overload is desired this turn for 10 pts total.

This is what I'm understanding but just wanted to check that I'm reading it correctly. Thanks.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, March 14, 2010 - 03:23 pm: Edit

E11.61 says it costs 8 power on a 2nd turn of arming instead of the normal four.

E11.25 talks about underloading and basically establishes that each pulse takes two points of power.

This is supported by E11.662 that says it's possible to underload an overload by paying 6 power (instead of 4 for a standard load) to get a 5th pulse.

It seems obvious to me that using reserve power to overload a PPD would cost two points of power per additional pulse gained (4 points for full overload, not 8).

So your Turn 4 example would be
Turn 4 = 2 pts to hold + 4 points if an overload is desired this turn for 6 pts total.

By Kerry E Mullan (Nomad17) on Sunday, March 14, 2010 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Correct Richard it would only be 4 points for 2 extra OL shots.

Note that if the PPD is not fired once OL you have to discharge it a well OL is restricted to R8.

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Sunday, March 14, 2010 - 05:23 pm: Edit

I see where you're getting the numbers now, thank you. I was thinking the first turn arming dropped off but I see that it doesn't now and the two points of holding power keep the PPD at 8 points for standard so that the above 2 + 4 yields a full 6 impulses.

Thank you gentlemen.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 15, 2010 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Note that a 2+6 arming cycle will overload a PPD.

By Kerry E Mullan (Nomad17) on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 10:58 am: Edit

John maybe something is being misunderstood here.

The designation of 2+4 refers to Davids prior post. In it it states that he is holding the PPD for 2 points. If this is true adding 4 additional energy fully overloads that PPD.

While of course a normally 2 turn allocation of 2 on turn x and 6 on turn X+1 will provide for an underloaded overloaded PPD(ie a 4 pulse PPD that is considered Overloaded and must follow all those restritions), that was not what the original discussion was about.

If you allocated 2 on turn one it's normally easier if you have the scoot room to just make it a 3 pulse load by allocating 4 on turn 2 and running after firing.

Overall it's tough getting in an Overloaded PPD as it only fires from R4-8(all while in the FA) so it takes a little planning plus cooperation from an opponent to do it.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Kerry,

My error.

And yes an overloaded PPD is often difficult to fully employ.

By Kerry E Mullan (Nomad17) on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Of course the easiest way to employ an OL though is to get an opponent to turn away before firing. ie launch 40+ points of plasma that alllows for the opponent to reach R6-8 but not 5(or they eat the 40).

Many will come in and take their shot then turn away to outrun the plasma. At this point an OL PPD can wreck havoc on their rears as well as totally mizia them by prudently firing 4+ phasers to create a hole. As each PPD does damage seperately this is a prime opportunity to get your 5th and 6th pulses to mizia the opponent.