No drone Fed means to me no drones or ADDs, period.

Probably put some light and heavy photon torpedoes on various units. Fighters with light photon torpedoes seems a possibility.

By Kenneth Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Thursday, April 01, 2021 - 07:31 pm: Edit

There is a possible system that could be adapted to cover the holes left by missing types of drones. And this system is already Fed only. Try having a light version of the SWAC as pods for general (or even EW fighter only) use.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, April 01, 2021 - 11:44 pm: Edit

With no drones, I would expect the Federation to deploy far fewer carriers and look on PFs much more favorably than was historically the case.

Perhaps three basic versions:

1) 2xphoton, 2xphaser-1, 2xphaser-3
2) 1xphoton, 3xphaser-1, 2xphaser-3
3) 4xphaser-1, 2xphaser-3

Alternately, replace one of the phaser-3s with the "sort-of-an-ADD, but-not-really" that Mike suggests.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 12:43 am: Edit

Perhaps they become the Hydranized Feds, Fed ships get slightly larger shuttle bays, replace some of the shuttles with direct fire fighters.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 08:48 am: Edit

There is already a phaser 3 pod in the game.

One solution would be to create a version designed for drone rails. Perhaps three types might work?

A half drone space size phaser 3 option that fits on dogfight type VI light drone rails? A full drone space phaser 2 option sized for type I drone rails, and a two space special rail phaser pod designed for special drone rails that contains a phaser I.

Adapt the existing rules for phaser pods except that these new systems replace drones on fighters 1:1.

That means existing carriers and deck crews need no change, instead of reloading drones, just substitute phaser pods.

Use the same published rules concerning drone stock piles, you could even adapt the rule on drone load out procedure.

Will it play the same? No. But the infrastructure already exists, and we could start play testing today.

One question, will players have to include charging every drone with energy every time one of these pods is mounted on a drone rail? Not a problem for a Kzinti carrier with a squadron of SAS streak fighters, that’s only 1 point to charge 2 phaser 3 drone pods replacing 2 type VI drones. But a Fed CVA with 12 F-14D fighters has what? 10 drone spaces worth of drones, the screaming of disgruntled Fed players having to pay 120 points of energy to charge the phaser pods for a full squadron load is just silly.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 09:44 am: Edit

Jeff;

A drone rail can already carry a pod. But per J11.331, you can only carry one phaser pod per fighter (two per heavy fighter), whether on a drone rail or a "pod rail". So you're effectively suggesting a major change to the pod rules if you're going to allow Fed fighters to carry multiple phaser pods. And if they can do it, why can't other empires?

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 10:15 am: Edit

If you are doing a galaxy where Feds have no seeking weapons, why are you building fighters with Drone Rails.....
That practice would be counter to the proposal put forth......
Basically no rails to put anything on.....

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 10:51 am: Edit

Richard:

ADDs aren't drones; they are a defense against drones. Besides, if we call it a Close-in Defense System (CDS), then it isn't an ADD anymore. While I would still just start with the ADD rules, that doesn't mean it is actually exactly an ADD, just like Andro phasers aren't "really" phasers despite using the exact same rules as phaser-2s. That's all nomenclature. The point is to figure out how it needs to work first.

You know what, I won't call my proposed defense system "ADD" anymore. From now on it is CDS.

And no "hydranized ships", please. I think it is important for the ships to be as close to the "real" ships as possible.

MarkS:

OK, while we are renaming things, there are no "drone rails" for these Feds. Instead they use something called "weapons mounts". These "weapons mounts" operate under the exact same rules and restrictions as drone rails, but can't use actual drones. (The various pods and RALADS/CDS-shot are all valid, though.)

Kenneth:

There are already EW pods. Maybe the Feds are allowed to mount a single EW pod on a weapons mount if they want. Or we could have a new reduced EW pod. Only one could be carried; it only provides ECM; it can be carried by any fighter on one of their weapons mounts. The danger of making a new pod is that it likely wouldn't stay "Fed-only". But making the fighter more versatile works for me.

Alan:

As I stated earlier, it might be necessary to use gunboats. If using gunboats, I would want to (naturally) use the following loadout:
2xPhot-FA, 1xPh-1-LS, 1xPh-1-RS, 1xCDS, 1xPh-3-RX.
This is basically a Thunderbolt-B with the G-rack replacement weapon put in place of the drone rack.
Obviously, there would be two weapons variants: the phaser variant with phaser-1-FHs in place of the photons, and the escort variant with CDSs in place of the photons. But that might be considered way too good.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 11:25 am: Edit

Not sure that your escort variant (3xCDS, 2xphaser-1, 1xphaser-3) would be "way too good". It seems pretty reasonable to me.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 11:43 am: Edit

On more general topics ...

I know that removing drones from the Federation is going to make them weaker overall. That's fine as long as it can be mostly mitigated in other ways. The Close-in Defense System (CDS) will allow them to deal with Klingon and Kzinti drone waves, while also allowing them some defense against Romulan plasma. (So, instead of taking out some Romulan phaser fire with drones, CDS reduces plasma warhead strength to compensate for the increased phaser damage.) While my initial proposal for how the CDS works may not be enough (or too maybe too much), I do think it is a reasonable foundation for how that system would work to handle that. Maybe let it affect PFs in addition to just shuttles. Maybe remove the ammo and just make it energy-based. Maybe make it split-arc so they are deployed in LS/RS pairs. Maybe all of them; maybe none.

Also, the Feds will get side-benefits, too. All of those ships that reduce the number of photons present in a fleet get significantly diminished. This will, without actually making any major ship design changes, increase the number of photons available in a fleet. That is another important part of mitigating the effect of no drones on a fleet-wide basis.

Fighters are a major issue. No matter what is done for fighters, they are going to not be as good as a drone fighter. That's just fact. Drone fighters are the bomb and far more useful than literally any other kind of fighter. Why? Because they have massive range. Any other fighter has a maximum range of, at most, 12 hexes; 15 hexes for their phasers. Drones can just go on and on and on. This is a huge advantage and taking that away means Fed fighters become way less effective. This is fine, however, and is just how it has to work. The point is not to make these Fed fighters as effective as drone fighters. The point is to make these fighters effective enough. Being as effective as plasma fighters is a decent goal.

Someone mentioned the light photon. I do not want to see light photons or heavy photons on ships, including PFs. Ships and PFs (if they are used) should still use normal, standard photons. However, for fighters, using a "fighter photon" (that looks exactly like a light photon) would work. There would be a new assault fighter similar to the Z-D. Let me call it the A-17 so as to differentiate it from anything else I might have suggested in prior times. It would be speed 12, damage 10, 1xPh-3 FA, a weapons mount or two, and a fighter photon with two charges. Later upgrades would make it faster (speed 14 or 15) and might give it a third charge. It would be 50/50 with F-18s which would replace its drones with some combination of CDS/RALAD rounds, phasers, and whatever else makes sense. The A-20 would use fighter photons with double the charges, the ADD would be replaced with CDS, and it would have to get some stuff to replace the non-existent drones.

One of the biggest problems with photon fighters is charging the photon freezers on otherwise power-starved ships. While that is still a problem, at least it is mitigated somewhat by halving the power requirements for charging those freezers, and doubling the charges available so the fighters don't have to be reloaded as often. (Same damage potential per fighter, but spread out twice as many shots.)

Alternatively to making the fighter photon from light photons, perhaps they should be made from proton torpedoes instead? The effect is similar (a four-point warhead), but the proton is a single turn weapon using two points of power, instead of a two-turn weapon using one point of power each turn. This wouldn't change the power requirements for the freezers (still two points to get a new torpedo), but would make this much more flexible as the new torpedo can be made in just one turn. Maybe that would work better?

There would definitely be far fewer varieties of fighters. Some phaser-only variants would likely be added, but a lot of existing stuff would be simplified. I would expect there to still be fighters armed with Ph-Gs, but in no greater numbers that in the official history.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 11:45 am: Edit

Alan:

Poor sentence placement. The "way too good" was meant to apply to the base 2xPhoton PF hull, not either of the variants. I'm not worried about the variants. It's the 2xPhoton PF being standard that I worry about.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 11:54 am: Edit

A two-charge fighter photon sounds appealing to me - it could be argued that the lighter photon causes less stress to the fighter, making it more suited to wider deployment than the standard photon (easier to build/maintain, etc). I would argue for retaining the standard photon on the A-10 and A-20 in their role as assault fighters in limited deployment.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Ahh. That makes more sense. In fact, I had intended to comment that their "standard" (2xphoton, 2xphaser-1, 1xphaser-3, 1xCDS) PF was really the scary one, but didn't get around to it.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 12:15 pm: Edit

ADD stands for Anti-Drone Drone. While operating as a direct fire weapon, it is in fact drone technology.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Per (E5.0) ADD stands for "Anti-Drone Defense System", and while it describes it as a special drone rack, it also says they are not drones.

I think saying the proposed no-drones Feds wouldn't use ADDs or a derived system is taking the name of the concept a bit too literally, when the clear intent is (aside from suicide shuttles or such) no-seeking weapons Feds - which is actually what the title of this topic actually refers to.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Richard:

And I quote:

---

Quote:

This is known as an "Anti-Drone Defense System" (ADD). An anti-drone is not a drone and is not treated as such; it is a direct-fire weapon.

---

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Remember that a G-type Drone rack can fire ADD darts.

I think that if the Feds never used Drones, they would have probably looked into developing the Light Photon Torpedo (and maybe the Heavy Photon Torpedo).


Garth L. Getgen

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 05:33 pm: Edit

I would recommend taking a closer look at the Federal Republic of Aurora material in Module Omega #3, Module Omega #5, the 2011 update to the Omega Master Rulebook, and Captain's Log #53, if only to help compare and contrast with what is being discussed here.

The FRA are also featured in the Omega playtest file for Federation Commander, in the event that this idea was to be brought over to FC's "Borders of Madness".

-----

The short-range cannon is typically given hemispheric firing arcs, rather than the 360* arcs one might expect with an ADD.

Fighter-mounted SRCs have no built-in ammunition capacity; instead, they rely on ammunition pods, which carry two shots per pod.

FRA size-1 fighter squadrons typically have a 2:1 ratio of superiority fighters to light photon fighters (and/or to "ballistic" fighters armed with tachyon missiles, which would not be relevant here). Their "best" size-1 superiority fighter, the Doberman-2B, has 2 FH phaser-3s, a single SRC, plus 2 added pod rails. Their "best" size-1 light photon fighter, the Rottweiler-2A, has a single FH phaser-3 plus a pair of FA light photons.

It's noted in the OMRB that the FRA are only able to install standard photons on size-2 fighters, though most Omega heavy fighters - to include those in FRA service - have yet to be committed to print.

Further, of the two multi-role shuttle types permitted for the FRA to use, one is armed with a pair of 360* phaser-3s, an FA-arc light photon, plus an FH-arc SRC. (The other swaps out the SRC for a tachyon missile, which would not be relevant here.)

-----

While there is, as yet, no playtest first-generation X-technology in print for the Omega empires, I'm not sure if the SRC is the kind of system that needs any sort of X-technology upgrade.

So, if a would-be "no-drone" version of the GSX Sakharov were to swap out its four X-drone racks for, say, 2 LS and 2 RS SRCs, there might not need to be any "new" rules to be drawn up before sending it on its historic mission to and from the Omega Octant in the mid-to-late Y210s...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

You missed this sentence...


Adapt the existing rules for phaser pods except that these new systems replace drones on fighters 1:1.

I thought it was clear enough, but just to complete the thought.

Replace the drones with phaser pods.

Yes, other empires may want them as well, since this is a stellar shadow journal proposal, let them.

They may not want to. As some of us have repeated over and over, drones are powerful in Star fleet battles. Bad enough that the Federation loses seeking weapons, I just don’t see the Kzinti giving them up.

And the Klingons can’t afford to.

Oh, and one other requirement. The Federation (and any other empire converting from drones to phaser pods) must continue to use the limited drone launch rates.

That means no federation fighter can fire more two drones in any SFB game turn, if one of those two drones is a type VI dogfight drone. Or to adapt it to this proposal:

no more than two phaser pods may be fired from a single fighter in any SFB game turn, and one of those two phaser pods must be a phaser 3.

I would recommend as well, that phaser pods may not be used as scatter packs. Ever. Just too powerful.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Hmmm, maybe the light photon needs both special rails to be added to the fighter (still two charges) ... could also be a phaser-2 variant with two charges ... start with split fire and 1/4 turn restriction 'til Y175?

(The Ph-2 does not count against phaser pod use as they use the special rails, the Fed may be able to use two Ph-3 pods?)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 06:48 pm: Edit

Feds without drones can have anti drones without violating Jewish dietary laws. So says the game’s overwrought designer. Let it be written... let it be done.

ADD = Anti Drone Defense.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 06:59 pm: Edit

Jeff,

No, I didn't miss that sentence. But maybe I saw its significance differently.

That aside, you're kind of "retconning" your 8:48 AM post, in which you said

---

Quote:

There is already a phaser 3 pod in the game.

One solution would be to create a version designed for drone rails.

---

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 07:36 pm: Edit

Against Romulans...

Someone made some new VFX that had been integrated into the Original Series, and in the episode, "Balance of Terror," they showed Enterprise using her phasers to create a sort of "Flash Effect" when firing at the WarBird. It made me think of Sharkhunter Flashbombs.

With that in mind, is it possible that the, "No Seeking Weapon Federation" might develop the Flashbomb from Simulator to Reality, and have it as an optional weapon (replacing ADD?) for the fleet on the Romulan border?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Alan,
I just meant that the current rules do not permit wholesale replacement of drones with phaser pods.

By Kenneth Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Saturday, April 03, 2021 - 09:31 am: Edit

Here are my thoughts:
CDS ammo should always require 1/4 pt of power, but that power will last for 25 Turns. CDS can be fired at drones (auto kill if hit), shuttles/fighters (do 1-6 pts of damage), plasmas (4 pts phaser damage), PF's/Ships (2 pts of damage).

Give all fighters a CDS launcher, but powered ammo must be loaded as a 1/2 deck crew action(Max 4 per fighter or 6 per Heavy fighter).

Any fighter with more than 2 spaces of drones will have a weapon/pod mount for each drone space above 2.

Any fighter that had special drone rails could get a Heavy Pod mount for every 2 special rails.

A Heavy Pod requires 2 DC actions to mount. Suggested heavy pods are Ph-2 pod, 1 shot Photon Launcher pod (the photon charge loaded on regular mount for an additional 1 DC action), CDS Pod (can hold 2 ammo internally and loaded separately, up to 2 extra ammo held on other mounts). Limit 1 Heavy pod per special rail fighter.