Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through August 18, 2020	25		08/19 01:45am

Perhaps one could allow the heavy RALAD to be mounted on two adjacent type-I drone rails (or two adjacent death bolt rails, in the case of Carnivon bombers)? Or rather, to have it that the heavy RALAD has a special "cradle" which is attached to two adjacent standard rails.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 10:14 pm: Edit

Gary, SVC said he did not want to add them to existing fighters.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Problem:

If these RALADS direct fire fighter weapons use the ADD tables, that means variable accuracy for ranges zero to three hexes (yes, I know auto miss at close range) and misses at a ranges equal to 4 or more hexes.

Both small target and erratic maneuvering can not “stack” and the small target bonus loses effectiveness at ranges of 7 hexes or less.

Generally, that means the fighters armed with these new RALADS direct fire weapons have a “gap” where they are vulnerable to defensive fire and unable to use their weapons effectively.

All an enemy ship needs to do is keep the range greater than 4 and they never need fear taking damage from these RALADS weapons.

Plus the fighters that try to close the range will be a bit easier to hit when they lose the bonus for small targets or erratic maneuvers.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 10:34 pm: Edit

I had read SVC's reply to SPP as referring to not adding heavy rails to pre-existing fighters. But if I should have read it as not allowing pre-existing fighters to use heavy RALADs at all, I would then ask to withdraw the suggestion in my previous post.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - 01:45 am: Edit

Some thoughts...

I suspect the Federation may benefit from these more than the Klingons or Kzinti, as I think they have more fighters with heavy rails than the other drone-using empires. (Obviously the Hydrans, Tholians, plasma-using empires, Vudar, and Jindarians won't benefit at all.) The main use of these weapons may be against PFs, since the Klingons and Kzinti do have lots of fighters that can carry the "medium" RALADS. Similarly, the most common late-war Federation fighter, the F-18, could use medium RALADs, but not heavy ones.

Jeff said

---

Quote:

All an enemy ship needs to do is keep the range greater than 4 and they never need fear taking damage from these RALADS weapons.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - 02:39 am: Edit

No, it does NOT mean a new fighter.

And I did not say not add them to existing fighters, I said not doing new versions of existing fighters with heavy rails.

The heavy drone on two type-I rails isnt' a new thing and works fine.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Another 0.002 Quatloos worth?

I was looking at the rules for Swordfish drones. Respectfully, I am of the opinion that the potential for multiple target engagement and stand-off defensive capabilities make Swordfish a more useful weapon than these proposed heavy ADDs.

(Of course, this is the opinion of someone who's lack of tactical skill has been referred to as worthy of a Darwin Award... )

It is, though, a fun discussion and I, for one, am glad it's been brought up.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - 07:45 pm: Edit

Swordfish drones are limited availability and more expensive than standard drones. The current light RALADs (type 6) do not count as special drones and replace drones at no cost (J12.13). I'm guessing that the same would be the case for the proposed Medium and Heavy RALADS?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, August 20, 2020 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Somebody, some time ago, submitted a rule for "Anti-Ship Missiles" (if I am remembering correctly) that was similar (in my mind) to this proposal. I had a copy (edited and everything) on my former computer, but it seems to have been one of the things lost in the crash. If anyone can remember it, we might in light of this proposal review the older rule proposal.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 20, 2020 - 06:40 pm: Edit

Loren knight submitted something with that title. He talked about it in a proposal topic that SVC deleted.

I never saw it and he didn’t give any details publicly, just that he had submitted it.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 20, 2020 - 06:45 pm: Edit

Found a reference in the Improved ADD rule proposal, Loren Knight posted June 2005.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 20, 2020 - 11:36 pm: Edit

This proposal would make a major upheaval for the captains log battle force article structure for drone using carrier empires.

It (in BPV’s terms) means that the heavy and medium RALADs are equal to speed 8 (slow) drones for all drone load out speed upgrade calculations.

Before this proposal, any drone using carrier gets “priced out” of later year scenarios. The later the year of the scenario, faster drones are available, which means late General war fighters with more drone racks, loaded with medium or fast drones progressively BeCome more expensive.

This has meant that empires like the Federation and Kzinti Hegemony had no recourse but to use smaller carriers with fewer fighters compared to the Hydrans who did not use drones , or the plasma empires that didn’t need to pay for drone speed upgrades for plasma torpedoes.

It may mean that drone using empires carrier fighter shuttles that elect to use heavy or medium RALADs equipped fighters will be at a comparative disadvantage. (Playtesting needed to determine if this is a valid concern.)

If SPP is correct that fighters will replace the game effects of drone stacks or drone walls, the obvious implication is that instead of destroying the drones, enemy forces will be destroying fighters.

Dead fighters do not get repaired or replaced during scenarios, and certainly do not return to the carrier or escorts to replenish expended drones or RALADs.

Unless all future battle force scenarios are on fixed maps, the drone using carrier empires will lose BPVs with every destroyed fighter.

Obviously, new tactics and innovations will be required.

The only carrier forces that you might see in future battle force articles might well be limited to those years where only slow drones are in use.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, August 21, 2020 - 09:30 am: Edit

Are Sabot refits ever required refits? If they are, they are a modest increase for plasma fighters.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 21, 2020 - 11:49 am: Edit

I need to review the rules regarding ADD use thru an atmosphere. I can’t remember if an ADD or RALAD can legally hit targets from within an atmosphere, that are in orbit outside the atmosphere (but still in range of the RALADs.) I assume shooting into an atmosphere with a RALADs is the same.

If Bombers inside an atmosphere can use heavy or medium RALADs to hit targets passing into or in orbit above the atmosphere without the 1 turn delay normal drones have to endure, the value of these weapons materially increase for planetary defense missions.

Advantages over drones are,
1. Direct fire, no delay between launch and hitting or missing target resolution.
2. Increases effective defense as the elimination of the passage thru the atmosphere doubles the effective rate of fire over a game turn break. (Effectively, two volleys within a 1/4 turn at the turn break.)

This also holds true for planetary bombardment by drone using empires, as traditional ADD/RALAD rounds have a high success rate in destroying type I, III and IV drones, while the rare S type (silo) drones merely take damage.