The direct fire fighter weapon you always dreamed of. Replaces a type 1 or type 4 drone, able to damage bigger targets. Maybe the 1 could damage a PF and the 4 could actually damage a ship?

It’s late and having scored my seventh consecutive 10,000 step day I was thinking out loud due to my festive mood.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, August 17, 2020 - 11:51 am: Edit

As a direct fire weapon, is this the sort of thing Lyrans might wish to have on their fighters?

SVC: PROBABLY, but Lyrans do not have ADD technology. Maybe the Klingons would sell it.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, August 17, 2020 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Everyone would want it.

Even better, some would say, if you could use it on unmanned fighters in a scatter pack role.

Fed CVA captains would kill to be able to use these things on their F-14 fighters. (Think about the late war variants... lots of drone racks.)

The key will be the amount of damage they inflict.

If these things damage output equals the total damage of the type 1 and type 4 drones that they replace, no one would dare close on a CVA squadron ever again.

Now if the accuracy is really bad, no one will use them as they are better off with standard drones.

The details are important.

SVC: I never said it would have damage equal to a drone warhead, but then, I also forgot that a RALAD has a variable damage output and I want to lock these to a specific value.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Monday, August 17, 2020 - 03:40 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Now if the accuracy is really bad, no one will use them as they are better off with standard drones.

---

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 17, 2020 - 03:54 pm: Edit

If they work like RALADS, then the maximum range is an issue. If fighters have to close to three hexes range to fire them, and they do less damage than a drone ... well you are basically turning all of your fighters into Hydran fighters. Albeit you have fewer of them, do not possess any enveloping weapons to take advantage of down shields, and individually they can take a little more damage than Stingers.

And of course there is rate of fire. Can a Z-YC fire off all six of its RALADS at once? Is there an impulse delay? Can they fire only one per impulse? or what?
SVC: Dunno. I was going to ask Steve P what he thought about that. I could see one or two a turn.

One assumes as a direct-fire weapon, even if mounted on the drone rails, they become fireable eight impulses after launch (the same time as the phaser weapons), and do not have to wait 16 impulses like drones (or do they?).
SVC: If Steve P says so I am inclined to agree.

They of course require deck crew actions equivalent to a type-I drone to load (one deck crew action), and the larger one takes a number deck crew actions equal to a type-IV drone (two deck crew actions) to load.
SVC: of course.

Can they be fired by a fighter doing erratic maneuvers unlike drones? ADDs can be fired from an ADD rack/type-G drone rack while under erratic maneuvers at a +1 penalty to hit (I have not checked if RALADS can be fired under such conditions).
SVC: I would have to say no. Targeting would be a bitch.

RALADS and ADDs are not affected by electronic warfare, would these heavy RALADS be so affected? If not, they become a reason not to go to erratic maneuvers and max ECM to try to avoid being hit.
SVC: I would assume not but let's ask that Steve P fellow. Anybody seen him lately?

RALADS uses the ADD table, if these use the same table?
SVC: of course they do.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Monday, August 17, 2020 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Have to ask about usage if the fighter is crippled...
At least with drones (already launched), a ship can take control.....
SVC: direct-fire weapons, control is not an issue. I would perhaps assume if they can fire a phaser they can fire these. Let's ask Steve P. Maybe he will drop by.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, August 17, 2020 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Plus, removing drones from the game table will change the way the game is played.

Drones are seeking weapons, and, during the time they are on the map, form a sort of pseudo terrain. Ships do not fly into drone stacks or drone walls because they might be the target. The General result is that players try to use movement (as well as labs) in an attempt to divine what ship is being targeted.

Example. Kzinti fleet launches many drones at two Federation ships. The Fed ships move in opposite directions. The drones that turn to follow the first ship, are then assumed to be targeted on that ship. If the rest of the drones turn to follow the second ship, then they are assumed to be targeted on the second ship. *note:this ignores the possibility that the drones were ballistically targeted to use ATG at some designated hex.

Point is, game play will change depending on if the fighters have drones, or direct fire weapons.

SVC: You are reading the tactics article written by the Steve C fellow who said drones influence movement. That is why he insisted on changing ACTASF and Starmada to use seeking drones not direct-fire drones. If you switch to RALAD-1s, you are giving up that ability. Tactics involve choices.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Monday, August 17, 2020 - 05:04 pm: Edit

You will either...
Get a player that uses them like Stingers...
Or uses them as in lieu Carrier Escorts, using the Escorts as combat ships....

SVC: tactics involve choices. What do you give up for this?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 17, 2020 - 07:48 pm: Edit

Yes, they would use the Antidrone combat table and range just like the RALAD=VI uses.

They might have two-I or four-IV times the damage of a RALAD=VI. They would NOT have the damage of a drone warhead.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, August 17, 2020 - 07:51 pm: Edit

We need to remember that thus is not the first or even second time direct fire weapons for fighters has been proposed.

It has many of the defects that Petrick pointed out to other direct fire weapons proposals.

In a sense, it dates way back to when Petrick analyzed a Phaser 2 pod for fighters back in (I think) 2002.

If it has an introduction date during the General war, published scenarios will be affected. If it is introduced during the Andromedan war or the ISC thing, published scenarios again could have different outcomes due to the new systems. Unless it happens during the trade wars... few scenarios for that period comparably....

Might be ok later in the history.

SVC: There is no effect on published history. If you use them, you use different tactics, but the scenarios are not changed.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 17, 2020 - 10:56 pm: Edit

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but this seems extremely powerful. A RALAD does 1-6 points of damage to a fighter (averaging 3.5) if it hits. That means a Type-IV RALADS would do 4-24, averaging 14 points. And it could do that damage to warships. Granted that RALADs are not the most accurate weapons, and that these could only be carried by fighters with "heavy" rails. But still...

Consider a squadron of F-14D or F-15D fighters. The squadron could carry 22 of these "heavy RALADs" (assuming one EW fighter in the suadron). Even if a fighter could only fire one per turn, that F-14D squadron will average 7 hits/98 damage at range-3. And if they are megafighters, it may not be easy keeping them out of range. They would be speed-30, without the vulnerability of warp boost packs. An F-14DM takes 10 points of damage to cripple and you would have to apply that damage before it reaches range-3. At range-4 an overloaded disruptor only does eight damage. So to prevent the fighter from completing the attack you would need to hit it with an overloaded disruptors and at least one phaser. And suppose the movement worked out such that the range would jump from 5 to 3. (The fighter is moving at speed-30 and would have priority over the ship to decide whether to go straight, turn, or sideslip after seeing how the ship moved.) Now you need to hit the fighter with an overloaded disruptor and (probably) several phasers to keep it from completing the attack.

You could try to launch drones at the attacking squadron. But those drones have to get through 14 gatling phasers. You'd better have a lot of drones. And even if both sets of heavy rails are carrying these, that F-14DM can still have six regular Type-I drones in addition.

As has already been mentioned, the fighters would have to get close and would thus take heavier losses. And regular Type-IV drones always do 24 points (barring things like EW or cloak) and don't have to roll to hit. But there are also more ways of stopping drones. This attack can only be stopped by staying beyond range-4 and with megafighters that might not be easy.

Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding something. But this seems like a pretty powerful option. And it is only an option. Nothing would stop the fighters from using ordinary drones, if the player thought that was better in the specific tactical situation. I'm not against the idea. I just want to be sure it doesn't completely nerf the fighters of all the non-drone-using empires.

SVC: My apologies for not clarifying the damage earlier. It is clarified below, making your fears go away.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 17, 2020 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Addendum to the previous post:

It occurred to me that ADDs don't fire through ESGs. Presumably these would be under the same restrictions. So the Lyrans would have a defense against these not available to other empires (except the LDR and some Orions). Also, since PFs can't carry ESGs, Kzinti or Fed fighters with "Medium RALADs" (which wouldn't require a heavy rail and would do 2-12 (average 7) points per hit) could still be effective against them.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, August 17, 2020 - 11:46 pm: Edit

I think Alan T. Is making a strong point here.

If damage by these “improved RALADS” is universal, (meaning able to damage ships and PFs instead of drones or shuttles or fighters only) its utility has doubled or more in game terms.

In some ways the ADD launcher was just a “free hit” like the probe launcher. (Under normal circumstances. The probe can be used as an emergency weapon, but normally Is not.) the ADD up until now has been something of an auxiliary weapon, being only able to Launch ADDs Or dog fight drones.

Now, the improved anti drone drones being able to damage ships will force all legacy SSDs of ships armed with add rounds t be re-evaluated.

Heck, out of the 2,000 plus published SSDs ships with ADD launchers shouldn’t be more than a hundred sheets... things like the Kzinti CV, or other older middle years hegemony ships.

Oh, and any ship with a drone G rack.

And didn’t the drone E racks have the ability to use ADD rounds as well?

Heck... didn’t the Klingon E3 have E racks?

How much of Petrick’s time is it going to take to correct all of those SSDs?

Dang, for TOS Crawford’s life expectancy, I sure hope he did not talk SVC into this.

This could absolutely RUIN Petrick’s social calendar.

(Grin.)

SVC: Show me one single word in my proposal that indicated ships, other than fighters, could use these. Now there is a question about PFs (but not about armed skiffs).

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 12:30 am: Edit

Just make them similar to dogfight drones. Full damage to fighters, half damage to PFs, quarter damage to ships.

I wouldn't assume that they can be launched from ships. That notion does not appear to be part of the original proposal.

SVC: Correct, the original proposal was clearly FIGHTERS ONLY.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 01:05 am: Edit

Cannot be launched by ships, I thought that was obvious.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 03:04 am: Edit

A RALAD-6 does 1-6 points of damage to a fighter if it hits. By the metric, that would be 1-3 to a PF and 1-1.5 to a ship but those are not allowed.

A RALAD-1 would do 2-12 points to a fighter (I would probably just lock it at 6), 1-6 to a PF (call it 3) and 1-3 to a ship (not allowed).

A RALAD-4 would do 4-18 points to a fighter (locked at 6 as fighter doesn't have more mass), 2-12 to a PF (locked at 6), 1-6 (locked at 3) to a ship.

If it hits. If you survived that close.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 09:18 am: Edit

OK. I had misunderstood the damage level. The damage SVC discusses in his 3:04 AM post makes this a powerful (though risky for the fighter) option, but not nearly so overpowered as I had feared.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 11:02 am: Edit

As noted, I had failed to clearly define the damage and the guesses people made were wildly different from my plan.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 01:31 pm: Edit

And of course there is rate of fire. Can a Z-YC fire off all six of its RALADS at once? Is there an impulse delay? Can they fire only one per impulse? or what?
SVC: Dunno. I was going to ask Steve P what he thought about that. I could see one or two a turn.
SPP: A Z-YC can launch two drones an impulse, however rule (J12.23) limits it to firing one RALAD an impulse. The fired RALAD counts against the limit on type-VI drone launch rate. So the Z-YC can fire two (2) RALADs a turn. So can most other fighters because most fighters can fire two drones a turn IF one of them is a type-VI and since the RALAD counted as a type-VI it satisfied that requirement. Further, under (J12.12) RALADS cannot be carried on "Special" or "Heavy" rails, so the maximum loadout for a Z-YC is four (4) RALADs and two "drones" on the special rails (can be type-I or type-III frames). This would technically mean that an A-20 cannot use this weapon at all as all four of the drone rails on an A-20 are in fact "Special" and "Heavy" rails in that they can be paired to carry type-IV drones. If this is to be changed, it will need to be included as a modification of the rule, that is to say the rule for the carry type-IV RALADs will need an exemption for the (J12.12) restriction.

One assumes as a direct-fire weapon, even if mounted on the drone rails, they become fireable eight impulses after launch (the same time as the phaser weapons), and do not have to wait 16 impulses like drones (or do they?).
SVC: If Steve P says so I am inclined to agree.
SPP: While the firing limit is not specifically addressed in (J12.0), the clear implication of (J12.21) is that the RALADs are treated as direct fire weapons and come on line eight impulses after launch even though they are carried on drone rails.

They of course require deck crew actions equivalent to a type-I drone to load (one deck crew action), and the larger one takes a number deck crew actions equal to a type-IV drone (two deck crew actions) to load.
SVC: of course.
SPP: Nothing to add.

Can they be fired by a fighter doing erratic maneuvers unlike drones? ADDs can be fired from an ADD rack/type-G drone rack while under erratic maneuvers at a +1 penalty to hit (I have not checked if RALADS can be fired under such conditions).
SVC: I would have to say no. Targeting would be a bitch.
SPP: Nothing to add.

RALADS and ADDs are not affected by electronic warfare, would these heavy RALADS be so affected? If not, they become a reason not to go to erratic maneuvers and max ECM to try to avoid being hit.
SVC: I would assume not but let's ask that Steve P fellow. Anybody seen him lately?
SPP: Under (C10.49) ADDs are penalized by a +1 modifier if the LAUNCHING UNIT is under erratic maneuvers. RALADS (and ADDs) otherwise ignore and are not affected by electronic warfare (E5.15) except for the shift under erratic maneuvers [(J12.24) and (E5.62)]. As phasers can be fired during erratic maneuvers (with a plus 2 shift which can be countered by electronic warfare) it would seem RALADs can be, They can also be used in a dogfight (J12.32) with the same reduction in accuracy for erratic maneuvers (1-4 to hit is 1-3 to hit in a dogfight), even though the launch range is one where normally the ADD cannot be fired (Range Zero). So I would have to say an erratically maneuvering fighter could launch one of these, unless within their own rules they are defined as not being able to be launched.

RALADS uses the ADD table, if these use the same table?
SVC: of course they do.
SPP: No addition.

Have to ask about usage if the fighter is crippled...
At least with drones (already launched), a ship can take control.....
SVC: direct-fire weapons, control is not an issue. I would perhaps assume if they can fire a phaser they can fire these. Let's ask Steve P. Maybe he will drop by.
SPP: As these are carried on drone rails, the rule for Crippling the fighter are in effect, and (J1.332) requires ALL EXTERNAL ORDNANCE TO BE DROPPED if the fighter is crippled.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 01:58 pm: Edit

As RALADs can be launched during a Dogfight [(J7.5), (J7.53), (J7.54), (J7.56), (J7.651), (J7.652), and (J7.661)], which is nominally too short a range to launch (ADDs cannot be fired at a target at Range Zero, except by fighters dofighting each other, and shuttles being dogfighted by fighters), this raises the specter of "Can these super RALADS be fired at a ship at Range Zero if the Fighter is engaged in Close Combat Maneuvering" (J4.52)? I am wishy washy on this issue.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 02:51 pm: Edit

Plus, removing drones from the game table will change the way the game is played.

Drones are seeking weapons, and, during the time they are on the map, form a sort of pseudo terrain. Ships do not fly into drone stacks or drone walls because they might be the target. The General result is that players try to use movement (as well as labs) in an attempt to divine what ship is being targeted.

Example. Kzinti fleet launches many drones at two Federation ships. The Fed ships move in opposite directions. The drones that turn to follow the first ship, are then assumed to be targeted on that ship. If the rest of the drones turn to follow the second ship, then they are assumed to be targeted on the second ship. *note:this ignores the possibility that the drones were ballistically targeted to use ATG at some designated hex.

Point is, game play will change depending on if the fighters have drones, or direct fire weapons.

SVC: You are reading the tactics article written by the Steve C fellow who said drones influence movement. That is why he insisted on changing ACTASF and Starmada to use seeking drones not direct-fire drones. If you switch to RALAD-1s, you are giving up that ability. Tactics involve choices.

SPP: Jeff Wile, the board situation has not really changed. It is just that instead of having a shoal of launched drones from the fighters influencing where you are going to move, it is the fighters themselves who are influencing your movement. Except for their numbers and greater durability on average, it is not any different than the Stingers influencing your movement. Plus it is not eliminating drones, simply that the drones are being launched by the ships. So a Federation force may not be launching drones from its F-15s, but the drones of its DE and the Carrier are. And scatter-Packs are still in play. All that changes are what is carried by the fighters, and heck you can choose to have the fighters carry drones if you want. These are simply an option, not being forced to replace the drones in all cases.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 02:54 pm: Edit

SVC: A major issue is that there are VERY few fighters with Heavy Rails at all (putting aside the "no RALADs on heavy rails issue for the time being), so there will not be very many fighters armed with the Heavy RALAD. Unless you add heavy rails to a lot of fighters (Z-Y(H)?).

SVC REPLIES, I don't want to add them to existing fighters.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 03:10 pm: Edit

I'll admit that I'm not particularly a fan of Alpha Octant empires which do not otherwise use drones, such as the Lyrans/LDR and Seltorians, having them on their fighters. (One thing I like about the "lost empire" Carnivons in Module C6 is how they avoided this, for better or worse.) If these proposed RALAD variants are to be made available to those empires, and if this enables them to have more viable options which avoid the use of drones on their fighters, well and good.

And if that also makes offering optional direct-fire fighters for those same empires more viable over in Federation Commander: Fighters Attack, even better.


Actually, since the "lost empire" Carnivons use ADDs on many of their fighters, as well as in a "spitfire" modification to their death bolts under (FD20.55), would it be a reasonable leap for them to acquire these RALAD variants in either of C6's "Carnivon timelines"?

If so, perhaps they could swap them in place of their death bolts on their bombers, if they so chose - but it would be interesting if they were also allowed to further develop the "spitfire" concept in order to launch them from the death bolts themselves...

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 07:01 pm: Edit

this makes me want to write a new term paper...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 08:18 pm: Edit

If these things are not to be added to existing fighter... (as per SVG, above comment.)

Does that mean a new fighter for every alpha empire that already uses fighters.