Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through March 09, 2002	25		03/09 02:50pm
	Archive through March 11, 2002	25		03/11 03:41pm
	Archive through March 14, 2002	25		03/14 08:46am

Alternative tracer.

I am fairly sure this will more or less be auto-rejected, but I think tracer needs to address several problems if it is to get any further.

1) It should not favour larger ships. As a conseqeunce, either (a) 1 photon can guide the whole fleet's photons for a better shift or (b) each photon can be modified in some way to reduce its warhead but increase its to-hit chances. (a) is probably way too powerful, so we'll go for (b).

2) It probably should never be able to increase the base chances to hit, but be able to counter ECM, which is when the photon gets really weak.

3) It should have a range maximum, say 12, so that photons do not have their long range base bombardment capabilities strengthened to unsustaninable levels. Besides, photons are fine from about R20 anyway.

As to the feasibility of tracer, I do note that Kirk used a tracer torpedo to hit a cloaked vessel in one of the films. While SFB is divergent from the films, I thought that it was worth a comment. I also note that it is, well, a torpedo. As such, you could regard it as a drone that moves 30 hexes/impulse that has some homing capability.
Putting it into "tracer" mode could simply mean that the photon goes half the speed so its homing capability is improved.

Bearing all this in mind , I suggest the following:-

From Y180 (or so), Standard photons could be fired in tracer mode (you could say tracers have to specifically armed). This sacrificed speed to impact on the photon's part for better accuracy.

Varient (a)

Damage = 4
To Hit = as standard.
Max range = 15.
6ECCM built-in, on top of any other ECCM sources.

(NB 1 - effectively, you sacrifice 2 pts of power per photon (half the damage) for 6 free ECCM.)
(NB 2 - this would be fantastic for nebula use)

Varient (b) - violates axim (2)

Damage = 4
Max range = 12
Roll 2D6. The photon hits if the roll is less than or equal to the standard hit number +6.

This does not generate any ECCM, but is much more resitant to enemy ECM because you are rolling 2D6.

Now this is sounding like a Fed wish-list type modification. However, it's not very good unless you run into heavy enemy EW. At R9-12 (no EW), the tracer is slightly superior to proxes or standards. At shorter ranges, it is only worthwhile if you don't have enough energy to overload, AND you are facing EW.

I do note that modifications along this line would be seen as a priority for the Feds as soon as PFs were out. Typically, my klingon PFs will have their built in ECM/ECCM, be generating 5-6 EW, and be be loaned 6EW from the PFT or the PF scout. I normally have them come into R8 (even R4) max speed with overloaded DSR against the Feds, with, say, 3ECCM and 11ECM. Lo and behold, the feds need 2ECCM to hit at all, while I will be hitting on at least 1-3. The PFT will be 12-15 hexes back, probably going speed 20 or so, generating heavy ECM (and possibly loaning) for itself while it tows the scout PF, which is loaning ECM for the flotilla and generating for itself. The PF flotilla has enough drone launch capacity to make persuit of the PFT tricky by any equal pointed force. The whole group can maintain an overall speed of ca. 20 while keeping every single unit protected with at least 10ECM - indefinately.

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 11:19 am: Edit

George,

I have read this thread in its entirety, including SVC's comments. From his comments I am led to believe that he has expressed at least two concerns about this proposal. I interpret those concerns as follows:

1) The tracer torpedo description of how it works doesn't act like a real tracer.

My response is that the game mechanic described does behave as a real tracer. The tracer torpedo helps improve the accuracy of subsequent fire. It is the techno babble description that mentions homing in on the tracer trail that doesn't fit the role of a tracer, not the game mechanic itself.

2) If we give this to the Feds, what do we give the klinks (and by extension everyone else).

I addressed this issue in my previous post. I don't see why the klinks need anything in response to this. However, if they want something give disruptors the same ability. If I'm playing the feds I'd love it it they used this 'against' me.

Feedback damage does establish a precedent for photons to leave a trail behind.

As for FTL travel being an issue -- it doesn't have to be. The photon is obviously moving at incredible FTL speeds of up to, what, 30 hexes an impulse? So, the concept of using a photon tracer to adjust subsequent fire is valid assuming you can fire photons in rapid succession and the tracer trail assists in judging the results of your fire.

Again, the game mechanic works great. All that is needed is techno-babble that passes muster.

By Captain Ebersole (George_Ebersole) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 03:16 pm: Edit

David Kass; on my proposal, that's nearly the gist of it, but not quite. My old proposal required another to hit roll, and even then another die roll was needed to determine the partial yield delivered to the target. Example; a photon misses; roll a die to determine whether it detonated near the target. If so, then roll another die to determine the explosion strength; maximum of %50 (a rough outside figure that I hadn't decided upon), minimum of %0.

Stephen W. Fairfield's proposal is along the same lines, but cuts to the chase by eliminating the second die roll and placeing the after effect (similar to my own) into an entirely new firing mode altogether.

On your DP proposal, I'm convinced now. I hadn't previously done the arithmetic, which led me to believe otherwise.

Alan; are you sure that tracer photons act like real tracers? If you hit with one at position A, and you fire another photon on the following impulse at position A, how likely are you to hit that moving target? My sense is that this is SVC's whole disagreement with the proposal as is. My solution is to require several Tracer-photons to be fired at the target to delineate the target's position by tracing out its basic path. A cloaked base might be a different story, but in ship to ship combat I think SVC's right about the Tracer as originally proposed.

On your second point; Give the Klingons nothing. Part of the point of us photon types offering all these proposals is because we see the photon torpedo becoming increasingly lack luster as the War creeps into its later stages. It's our opinion that other races have lots of neato toys already. And where we don't want to radically improve the photon, we are at the same time seeking a solution that helps keep the photon's robust flavor. It could be that this tracer mode is an optional rule for non-EW environments.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Here's an idea to counter SVC's FTL argument.

Fire the Photon Tracer on the same impulse as the Photons that are fired with the benefit of the Tracer.

How do we do this?

AEGIS.

A Ship with Photons under Limited or Full AEGIS will fire, Judge the result and Fire again with the actual remaining Photon spreed.


SO.

This is how photon Tracers should work using AEGIS.

You Purchase the Ship with the AEGIS surcharge.

You Fire a Standard or overloaded Phottorp at the target during the Aegis step for full damage.
If you hit you can Fire any number of other weapons at that target during the regular weapons fire step with a 4ECCM bonus.

All ship with AEGIS fitted my fire with the benefit reguardless of whether or not it fired the tracer shot as long as it is within the 6 hexes of bopth the tracer launch vessel and the target.

AEGIS is limited to 6 hexes so Proxi fuse photons wont come into effect ( unless using Overloaded proxi but that's another matter ).

The net result is that the higher BPV counter acts the more extensive damage production.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Actually, you'd need PhoMES, the Photon Multiple Engagement System, to make that work.

By Jonathan McDermott (Caraig) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Perhaps PhoMES would then be something that would need to be added, much like UIM or DERFACS, after a certain date, or for an increase in BPV as commander's options.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 03:26 am: Edit

Are you intending for it to be pronounced FOAMS?

Well actually I like the idea of buying a ship with PhoMES under the commander's options.

Although I think phaser fire should be able to take advatage of the effects aswell.

There should by rights be a LAB based die roll to really see if the Tracer had any benefit to the forth comming attack.

Coupled with some kind of command rating limit/die-roll to get all vessels in a fleet to use the targeting data co-operatively.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 03:50 am: Edit

Shouldn't that be PMS?

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 10:44 am: Edit

George,

Yes, I do think that the tracer torp behaves like a real tracer. However, I am viewing the 1 impulse delay as a convenient abstraction for purposes of gameplay. It keeps the rule very simple, yet functional, while at the same time representing the spirit of tracer fire. That's good enough for me.

You could go a few different routes with this: You could just accept the abstraction for what it is or concoct some techno babble to explain away the abstraction. Something along the lines of 'the tracer photon makes it easier for the targeting ship's fire control computer to judge the results of fire and calculate an improved targeting solution as if the target had not moved. This improved targeting solution is then passed to the tracking subsystems, which compensate for the target's movement.' Another possibility is to make the rule more complicated to reduce the level of abstraction. There a lot of ways to do this, such as using the Aegis rules. Others have been posting ideas along those lines. Personally, I prefer the simpler, more abstract rule. I think the added complexity of the other proposals outweighs the return (i.e. its less abstract or makes more sense in the 'real world'). I realize that I'm probably alone in this sentiment. SFB rules would have been a LOT simpler if I had written them. (Not intended as a criticism).

One thing to take into account George. The weapons SVC mentions as firing real world tracers don't have sophisticated computers built into them to adjust for the target's movement (unless you count the grunt's Mark IV eyeball).

I'm not sure about this, but I think I recall that the vulcan cannons mounted on modern aircraft uses tracer rounds. I know that these same aircraft use advanced lead-computing gunsights. I wonder if the tracers are used in conjunction with the lead-computing gunsights? I doubt that they'd be for the pilot's benefit since there is no way he'd be able to do better than the computerized gunsight at closing speeds approaching 1000 mph.

By Captain Ebersole (George_Ebersole) on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Alan; well, we disagree. Not a big deal. It's up to the powers that be to decide what's what.

I think modern combat aircraft only use tracers for training. Or so I've been told.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 12:05 am: Edit

I was thinking about combining the Proximity fuse Photon torpedo with the Tracer and I have felt that it could not be of any aid to the phaser fire which should also gain from the tracers effects.

I could not see anyway that the phasers could be aided...until now.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 12:32 am: Edit

PROXIMITY MODE PHASERS

E1___.0 After the development of the Federation proximity photon torpedo and the increasingly common UIM and Defracs diruptor fire, most Phaser-1 using races experimented with the idea of finding a method of combining their increased abilities to hit with their more common phaser weapons.

Most races hit upon the idea of the Proximity Mode Phaser and feilded them arround the year 183.


E1___.1 STRUCTURE
E1___.11 The proximity Mode phaser is a conventional Phaser-1 with it's internal highly advanced targeting system being reprogrammed by a programme that can be downloaded in the targeting module to allow the weapon to be fired under the proximity mode.

E1___.2 EFFECTS
E1___.21 The effect of the proximity mode phaser is to fire a phaser 1 with a larger acr as it sweeps past the target, reducing the ammount of damage the vessel can inflict on the target but increasing the chance that at least some damage shall be inflcited on the target.

E1___.22 The Phaser is fired under the proximity mode and the selection to fire as a proximity mode phaser is made at the instant of firing.

E1___.23 The Proximity mode phaser may not be fired at target closer than a range of 8 hexes ( inclusive ) nor father than 25 hexes. The damage generated shall be determined by the table below for those ranges.

Die	Range
Roll	9 - 15	16 - 25
1	2	1
2	2	1
3	1	1
4	1	0
5	0	0
6	0	0

E1___.3 LIMITATIONS
Only type I phasers may be fired as proximity mode phasers.
They may only be purchased after Y183.
They may only be purchased by Disruptor ships after that ship has or has purchaced UIM or Defracs.
They may only be purchased by Photom armed vessels after that vessel has purchased PhoMES.
Plasma Armed ships gained this ability in Y181 and do not require any special purchased before Proximity mode can be bought.

E1___.4 COST
To purchase Proximity mode for a vessel requires 0.25 BPV per phaser-1 on that vessel.
All Phaser-1s must have the programme purchased for them to fire in proximity mode or none.


E1___.5 Rhumours
There are many who say that the reason the Klingons developed the K refit was to take advantage of what they could forsee would become availible in reguards to the combination of UIM and Proximity Phasers.

By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 07:34 am: Edit

Why not just use Wide-Angle Phasers from Omega?
We already know those rules have been thoroughly playtested and are balanced.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 05:45 pm: Edit

Phasers don't have a warhead that can be prematurely detonated at close range to the target. They are a beam, and as such already have a certain proximity effect to them (variable damage for increased 'hit' capacity)

And as Troy pointed out, wide angle phasers already exist in the Omega quadrant.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 12:09 pm: Edit

Sounds like a Fed wishlist item.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 08:12 pm: Edit

Doesn't a prox photon detonate at a greater distance from the target? If so, what good is prox photon tracer? How could any targeting solutions that follow or use the prox tracer be of any benefit?