Perhaps the heavy work boat would have the standard PF engines, and a worse movement cost with the added mass, note that work boats rarely come with boost packs. Not being a combat unit the trade offs may balance out.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, February 24, 2018 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Suggestion for an improved Lyran PF:

Unlike the Gorns or Tholians (but like the Klingons or Hydrans), The Lyrans don't seem to be able to produce as many phaser-1s as they need. This, unless I am misinterpreting, is the primary objection to upgrading the phaser-2s to phaser-1s on their PFs. Even that late, they are building actual warships with (some) phaser-2s.

So how about this as an upgrade? Instead of upgrading the phaser-2s to phaser-1s, upgrade the phaser-3s to phaser-2s. That would give a Lyran PF 2 disruptors and 4 phaser-2s.

This probably isn't as good as upgrading the phaser-2s to phaser-1s (for one thing, it requires more power to arm all phasers) but is better than what they have now and doesn't run into phaser-1 availability issues. And if the tactical situation were really squeezing the PFs for power, they could arm the phaser-2s as phaser-3s anyway, duplicating the firepower of the current PF. But if power were available, they could arm all phasers fully, generating more firepower than they currently are able to.

By David Jannke (Bigslowtarget) on Sunday, February 25, 2018 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Interesting Alan. I'm up for the inevitable 6 P2 -P variant. It would make for a wonderful casual antifighter/antidrone escort.

Solves those power problems in a hurry too.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 26, 2018 - 11:48 am: Edit

The principle problems I have with the suggestion are:

The baseline argument applies to all phaser-3s. Replace all phaser-3s with phaser-2s (or phaser-1s since a phaser-2 is just a phaser-1 with a less capable fire control so no reason for the phaser-1 only empires not to use phaser-1s) and fire them as phaser-3s when you do not need to fire them as phaser-2s or phaser-1s (which also is a tactic used for the normal phaser-1s and phaser-2s to save power when downing a drone or a shuttle or etc.).

Also, if the Lyrans can upgrade their phaser-3s on their PFs to phaser-2s, then why can't the Kzintis do it? Or the Feds (only one phaser-3) or Romulans (only one phaser-3 on the StarHawks), or the Gorns, or the Tholians, or the Orions, or the Inter-Stellar Concordium?

Letting the Lyrans go "all phasers are phaser-2s" is opening a can of worms. Although I suppose you could fall back on "just do it for this one empire and do not do it for any other" and I get to handle the fall out of other players then asking "why?"

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, February 26, 2018 - 12:12 pm: Edit

Another issue there might be that typically, the size of mount taken up by a phaser-3 tends to be (or at least seems to be) smaller than that for a phaser-1 or phaser-2 - even on a craft the size of a gunboat. Given how the boxes are laid out on a Lyran PF, it may be awkward to try and shuffle them in order to try and clear space for a single phaser-2 mount, even if one were to extract both side-mounted phaser-3s in the process.

Although, the Carnivon PF in Module C6 does have a pair of adjacent RX phaser-3 mounts. If the engineering permitted it, one could in principle replace them with a single phaser-2. But, in practice, would the Carnivons bother with such an option?


On a broader note, it's worth bearing in mind that neither of the "lost empires" in C6 have particularly heavily-armed fast patrol ships, despite being published much more recently than those in Module K.

The Carnivon PF is, if anything, even less well-armed than the Lyran PF; it only has the aforementioned phaser-3s, two forward-mounted phaser-2s, and a single disruptor cannon - which is replaced by a single phaser-1 on the phaser PF variant. That said, a Carnivon flotilla has somewhat of a "force multiplier" if fielded against rival flotillas, courtesy of its heel nipper variant. A pair of those can cause trouble for any "hot warp" PFs which happen to have their warp booster packs attached, or any "volatile warp" PFs being targeted in cross-setting encounters (particularly if the latter is running its afterburners).

And the C6-Paravian PFs only have two phaser-1s and a pair of quantum wave torpedoes (which become an additional pair of phaser-1s on the phaser PF). But then, there is something to be said about a flotilla with the ability to launch ten QWTs every turn.

Which is not to say that I think either of those PFs ought to be changed - at least not in terms of how they would have existed in the Alpha Octant. (Outside of Alpha, well...) But any Lyrans in one of the "lost future" timelines might have at least one rival PF design they need not necessarily be in envy of. So long as those heel nipper variants aren't around, I suppose.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Monday, February 26, 2018 - 01:58 pm: Edit

SPP: Tell them the Lyrans developed a PF-hot warp-only phaser miniaturization technology and refused to share with anyone else. By the introduction of PFs the war's outlook was bad and the Lyrans did not want even the Klingons to have it.

Then shut whiners down like you shut down the Roms with the "me too" for the Plasma cannonade. I'll be cheering from the sidelines. have fun.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, February 26, 2018 - 10:36 pm: Edit

Spp;

Why?

Because the Lyrans, designing the first true PF, made some (too conservative) assumptions how about much stress the hull could take, resulting in design inefficiencies and a bit of wasted space. After the PF had been operational for a while, they realized that with a bit of judicious redesign, they could place larger weapons in the ph-3 mounts. Other empires' PFs, designed later, were pretty much packed with all the weapons/power they could handle, from the beginning.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 12:14 am: Edit

A basic problem with the Lyrans has to do with the lack of seeking weapons compared with many other empires.

If you take six standard PFs of Lyrans vs the drone empires (Klingon, Kzinti, and Federation), the K/Z/F can put a wave of 24 drones on target as they engage the Lyrans; up to 36 if they plan it well. The Lyrans will have to use all of their phasers and probably their disruptors to prevent a drone from blowing off a shield and taking damage; even doing so might not stop all of the drones. At this point the Lyrans have no weapons left and the K/Z/F still have all of their direct fire weapons fully charged. Game over.

Going up against the plasma empires is even worse. They can put up to 24 Plasma-F on the board approaching the Lyrans. Lyrans have no chance to take these down without taking heavy damage. Again game over.

Upgrading the phaser-2s to phaser-1s on the Lyrans would do little to improve this situation as either one should kill a drone. Upgrading to phaser-3s to phaser-2s would probably improve the autokill of a few more drones.

Its really too late to tone down the other PFs. If their drone control had been limited to a couple of drones (like fighters) and limited their control range so they couldn't build up a wave, maybe it would help. But that ship sailed long ago.

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 02:05 am: Edit

Or perhaps the Lyrans developed a special phaser capacitor that ONLY can use "hot warp" energy to put double the amount of energy in P3 caps (P3 caps can hold one full point).

The Lyrans developed this from some information based on spies in the LDR (gatlings) leveraged from the tech of ESGs.

They refused to share it when the Klingons wouldn't trade the secret of the Stasis Field generator.

Net effect the Lyrans get an extra point of power every turn they are firing their P3.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 02:08 am: Edit

If the Kzinti PFs build up a wave of 24 or 36 drones I take my Lyran flotilla and turn and burn the other way until they run out of fuel.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

So you are turning from simply upgunning the existing Lyran PFs to "everyone realized that they could build slightly larger PFs and install more firepower." So back-dooring in "heavy PFs." (To be clear, if you are saying the Lyrans were able to build slightly larger PFs to carry the upgraded phasers, then everyone WOULD build slightly larger PFs to carry more weapons.)

Or you are just going back to the age old "Do what I want and tell everyone else to accept it even though what I want could clearly have been done by every other empire once this empire demonstrated it was possible. Once I get what I want, ADB can deal with the fallout of explaining to all subsequent submissions to do a similar upgrade as demonstrated by the one I want that it was not possible for any other empire."

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Jon Murdock:

The problem is that "running away" is not always an option.

For example:

"Well Lieutenant Commander Murdock, you saved your flotilla from any serious damage, but the convoy were escorting was shot to pieces with two large and two small freighters destroyed, and another large freighter and four small freighters crippled and over half their cargoes lost to the empire."

There are certainly other situations that can leave you no choice but to fight.

A Lyran Bobcat flotilla with the plus refit has a combat BPV of 323.

A Kzinti Needle flotilla with the plus refit, assuming all type-IF drones, has a combat BPV of 367.

You could delete one of the Kzinti PFs (50 BPV) and have a fairer fight (Bobcats 323, Needles 317), or add a seventh Bobcat (Bobcats 365, Needles 367), but with a 44 point edge in BPV normally you would kind of expect that the Kzinti flotilla is going to win if they do not make some significant blunder.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 05:13 pm: Edit

An alternate armament suite of 1 Disruptor, 3 Phaser 2 and 2 Phaser 3 plays fairly well for the Lyran PF. Arming 2 disruptors is hard especially without packs and the PF disruptor does not have the added range to make sniping with standards truly viable.

Unfortunately, such a weapons suite implies a trimarian design (3 engines with 2 boxes each) which seems to be prohibited.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 06:56 pm: Edit

Honestly, I do not know if it would be possible to redesign the standard Lyran PF to 1xDis-FA, 1xPh-2-FA, 1xPh-2-FA/L, 1xPh-2-FA/R, 1xPh-3-LS, and 1xPh-3-RS. I think you would lose the spare APR (the Tholian PF requires seven points of power to arm two disruptors (4), two phaser-1s (2) and two phaser-3s (1), and the proposed armament requires only six points of power to arm one disruptor (2) three phaser-2s (3), and two phaser-3s (1). Beyond that, I cannot think of any way to make the SSD "look pretty" with such a re-design. There is no real way to put the bridge in the middle if you are stacking a diruptor-FA and a phaser-2-FA in front of it.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 07:05 pm: Edit

Hmmm, Kzinti flotilla has (normally) 11 A-racks (the PFS has only one rack, more if there's a PFD in the mix) and having type-IVs cuts their endurance down by a turn (2 turns if 2xIVs, 3 if 2xIs+1xIV, 4 if 4xIs), Klingons with their B-racks have an endurance of 3 turns (6xIVs) to 6 turns (12xIs)...

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 07:21 pm: Edit

The mission of PFs is different for each fleet. The Kzinti PF is 2 extra drone racks with a additional Disr. With 6 extra control channels as well.
The Lyran Bobcat is 2 extra Disr (range 15) as well as 2ph2 and 2ph3 to help in drone defense.

The Lyran CA with Mech Links is cheaper then a Kzinti BC with mech links and speed 32 drones. Add PFs to the links. The cost of the Kzinti PFs vs the Lyran means that the Lyran will have 4PFs (possibly just 3 not sure of the math). vs the 2 on the Kzinti BC.
Lyran 12 Disr at range 15 36 average damage. 8ph2,8ph3 extra for drone defense. Add 2 ESG and 6 more PH3 from the ship.
6 Disr for the Kzinti and 8 drone racks, 4 being A racks no reloads. Total 6ph1 (the Tiger can have that if the phaser refit) 12ph3 good only at close range. 24 control channels.

I like those Odds for either side. Of course a PF tender for either side with a Flotilla changes things a bunch. However how you use your PFs is dependent on the type but they are support forces.

So what kind of PF can you design that would be more help in that role? Supporting the ship that is carrying it.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 08:51 pm: Edit

Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2)

The only PFs with B-racks are the conjectural FRAX.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 11:22 pm: Edit

SPP;

Wait a minute... you're putting words in my mouth that I never actually said. That may be my fault for not expressing myself clearly in my previous post. What I meant to suggest, but perhaps didn't word very well, is that the Lyrans made some design mistakes and later realized they could correct those and and fit slightly larger weapons into the same space. The empires that designed their PFs later, whether through luck or through observation and engineering assessment of Lyran PFs, did not make comparable mistakes. Their PFs are essentially "maxed out" (other than the shield refit) from the beginning.

I don't know how often that sort of thing happens with Army combat systems. But I guaran-dang-tee you it happens with combat aircraft. I could cite several examples but let me give you just one; a plane that I have personal hands-on experience with.

The F-111 was originally intended for both USAF and U.S. Navy use and was therefore intended to be capable of carrier operations. Carrier landings put a lot more stress on the landing gear than runway landings do, so the F-111 had to have a very robust, and heavy, landing gear to handle that stress. When the Navy pulled out of the F-111 program, USAF was stuck with a plane with much larger and heavier landing gear than it needed. Ideally, the landing gear should have been redesigned, which would have improved the jet's capabilities. The exact nature of the improvement would have depended on the specifics of the redesign but the most obvious candidates would be making the whole plane lighter, improving performance, or increasing the size of the fuselage fuel tank, improving range.

Because the F-111 program was already badly over budget and behind schedule, those redesigns never happened. But from an engineering standpoint they certainly could have happened. Though the analogy isn't perfect, what I was suggesting was that something conceptually similar happened with the Lyran (and only Lyran) PF. But the Lyrans found it viable to actually perform the redesign.

I'm not sure what you mean by

---

Quote:

Or you are just going back to the age old "Do what I want and tell everyone else to accept it even though what I want could clearly have been done by every other empire once this empire demonstrated it was possible. Once I get what I want, ADB can deal with the fallout of explaining to all subsequent submissions to do a similar upgrade as demonstrated by the one I want that it was not possible for any other empire."

---

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 11:49 pm: Edit

I think SPP was saying that once you say that "space & weight" can be made available for more systems on one empire's ship of any class, everyone else will use that to justify improving their own ships of that same class. "If the Lyran's can do it, then the Kzinti can do it too... so nothing changes other than everyone's ships of that class getting better". What computer gamers call "power creep".

On the other hand, I understood Alan's point the first time he made it. The Lyran PF was first. As I remember it, by 3-5 years or so. They probably didn't design it as efficiently as their later imitators did the first time out of the gate. And Lyran PFs, which I have always considered to be "noticeably weak" compared to just about everyone else's PFs, are supposed to be a "signature thing" about the Lyrans. They are supposed to be "known" for their PFs.

I'm no engineer, most of my understanding of this comes from SFB, but it would make a lot of sense too me if not longer after all the other races made more efficiently designed PFs, the Lyran's might have had some type of "+" refit to match the more refined designs that emerged after the Lyran's had first introduced the concept.

Did I mention that I love PF's and all the other "tiny ships"? :-)

By David Jannke (Bigslowtarget) on Wednesday, February 28, 2018 - 02:15 am: Edit

The balancer for Lyran PFs in my old campaigns was that by the rules Lyran ships can have more casual PFs as part of a battle force and their CAs and larger often have four or more links instead of the normal 2 maximum allowed.

They still get shorted a bit on the power of the PFs in a squadron battle but there is a strategic balancing factor.

Incidentally, the charts for the PF disruptors are only to 10, the rules list Range 15 unless otherwise specified but the R section and the errata onsite don't list anything. Is that something in a CL somewhere?

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, February 28, 2018 - 02:21 am: Edit

Alternately the Lyrans got some special HOT WARP only system that let their disruptors be fired to range 18.

Some tiny thing should be enough:

1 extra point power (see my hot warp P3 capicitator above)

Range 18 on their disruptors

Heck, how about one or two, one use only, range 0, 1 or 2 point ESGs?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, February 28, 2018 - 07:30 am: Edit

Lyrans are not known for the _quality_ of their PFs but rather for their significant use of quantities of PFs. Look at all those ships with all those mech-links for casual PF usage.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, February 28, 2018 - 07:34 am: Edit

Again, if they get longer-ranged direct fire weapons, it is possible that the power creep issue comes up.

Same with using a forbidden system (the ESG) - this will open the door for other empires to want forbidden things (maybe PL-G for plasma races), a PPD for the ISC, PGs for Feds, etc etc.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, February 28, 2018 - 07:41 am: Edit

Idea: One shot PF carrier.

This is basically an unmanned warp engine that can have three PFs docked to it (with just enough infrastructure to support it, minimal shields and enough track type systems to function. It is controlled by a leader or scout PF docked to one. Two could be used to carry six PFs.

The point of this unit is to allow PFs to do long range strikes and reactions. In F&E terms each pair cost 1 EP and allow range two PF strikes and extended reaction (if otherwise qualified). Pinning out PFs using such is possible.

After use, the unit is expended.

These units are stored at bases and can be deployed as any new unit when constructed but require an FFT (or larger transport ship) to move.

Perhaps first developed by the ISC to support their efforts to separate the galactic powers by deploying these to pacification stations.

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Wednesday, February 28, 2018 - 09:13 am: Edit

I'm not sure how unmanned a warp engine can be. One problem I see is this carrier being destroyed in combat and the PFs not being able to return. On the other hand, are these somehow strategic-only warp, or could the scout or leader stay docked and move around the board for free?