Tholian PFs cannot pinwheel in F&E (they are already such highly abstracted units that falls below the threshold of detail seen in that game). Their fragility and such is already accounted for.

But this is getting into losing the forest for the trees - this would not just be an SFB rules change but an F&E one. The overall nature of web breakers versus webs is that the breakers outweigh the generators and casters - exactly the reason why the Seltroians were able to overthrow the Tholian Will in the first place.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 06, 2021 - 04:02 pm: Edit

That's the disconnect I was talking about earlier (or part of it anyway). Web breakers most certainly do not outweigh web generators and web casters at the SFB level. They merely reduce the Tholian advantage, but don't come close to eliminating it.

And as far as SFB goes; if Tholian PFs cannot reinforce web in F&E (something they are really good at in SFB), then don't allow Seltorian PFs to have web breakers in F&E.

In any case, since this would explicitly require a change to SFB rule E15.13, it probably will be DOA.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 06, 2021 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Another possibility for new PFs for the module would be changed weapon suites, specifically to counter the Andromedans. For example, the Klingon G1 has two phaser-2s, a disruptor, two drone racks, and an ADD. This ADD is fine against Kzinti or Feds (lots of drones, especially if facing a fighter squadron) or Hydrans (no drones but ADD can also hurt fighters). But it's not much good against Andros. Swapping out the ADD for either a third phaser-2 or a third drone rack would make it more useful during the Andromedan invasion.

I don't know how many such cases there would be.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, August 06, 2021 - 06:56 pm: Edit

While I also like the idea of different gunboat models for particular enemies, Alan, I can see this quickly devolving into "Option Mount Gunboats."

(... And I know in my heart that anyone suggesting ANYthing like that would be locked up in the agonizer booths for a VERY long time by our hosts/friends in Amarillo )

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 06, 2021 - 08:19 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I don't see that as a problem. I'm not proposing an "option mount" version of the G1. My suggestion is very specific; that PF weapons (the ADD being an obvious example) that aren't much good against Andros be swapped out (if possible) as a permanent conversion for weapons better suited against them. The Orion PF would remain the only one with actual option mounts.

Or am I misunderstanding your objection?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, August 07, 2021 - 11:26 am: Edit

I wasn't being clear.

With the ADD replaced with a Phaser-2, it seemed natural to me that SOMEone would say that it could also, just as easily, be replaced with a Type-A Drone Rack, a Type-E drone rack, or, well, who knows what. Next thing we know, there'll be proposals for a Romulan version with a RH Plasma D rack or an AP Plasma F.

Any or all of these would be built in these configurations, but I do still see this as something akin to what I think Orions do with their "Option Mounts;" ships are built in a fixed configuration, but there is enough variation in the multitude of these configurations that, in game terms, it's simply represented by "Option Mounts."

While I (personally) like the "Anti-Andromedan" configuration you proposed, it's this potential opening of a floodgate that prompted me to make the comment that I did.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, August 07, 2021 - 02:15 pm: Edit

The requirements on tech sloshing have been in place for years.

It is generally a big fat “NO!”

Often with emphasis added.

Phasers are relatively common. You would have to look for an empire that does not use phasers. Hard.

Drone using races are not universal. By that, I mean relatively few empires actually use drones, compared to the number of Empires that do not.

I think Alan Trevor is proposing a change that most empires could actually implement without the huge game wrecking can of worms you are asking for.

Just my opinion.

Y.M.M.V.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, August 07, 2021 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Jeff,

But alternate weapon suites for PFs already exist. Consider the Klingon G1. The basic configuration is, as stated, 2 ph-2s, 1 disruptor, 2 drone racks, 1 ADD. But there's also a G1P "Phaser PF" with 4 ph-2s, a disruptor, and an ADD. And there's a G1B "Assault PF" with 2 ph-2s, 2 disruptors, 1 drone rack, and the ADD. And let's not forget the G1D, with 2 ph-2s, 3 drone racks, and that ever-present ADD. Finally, there is a specialized anti-fighter version, the G1K. Its weapons configuration is the same as the basic G1, except that the 2 drone racks are E-racks instead of normal A-racks; not so effective against ships but very effective against drones and fighters.

The floodgate has been open along time. And note that while some of the variants are more oriented toward direct fire (G1P, G1B) while others have more seeking weapons (G1D, G1K), they all retain that ADD. This absolutely makes sense when you are fighting Kzinti, Feds, and Hydrans. But during the Andromedan invasion, it's much less useful. I merely propose one final variant, against that Andros (call it the G1A) that swaps out the ADD (always assuming that is possible - maybe it isn't possible) for something more useful against that opponent.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, August 07, 2021 - 02:38 pm: Edit

N.B.

Previous message was directed to Jeff Anderson, not Jeff Wile.


Jeff (Wile),

You are correct that I am not proposing anything like tech sloshing. The suggestion is for the Klingons, during the Andro invasion, to replace the ADD with other tech they already possess; another phaser-2 or another drone rack.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, August 07, 2021 - 03:57 pm: Edit

"frigates were largely replaced by war destroyers"

I think you are mistaken. FFs are still valuable units, just NOT in main battle lines.

Besides, they also make great base platforms to upgrade.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, August 07, 2021 - 05:52 pm: Edit

I don't see any ADD being upgraded to a better weapon. Load it with type-VI drones and be done with it.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, August 07, 2021 - 08:21 pm: Edit

You know, with the G1 deckplans out, one could see that it's impossible to replace the ADD with any other weapon system, mainly due to the lack of room for the replacement system (personnel) ...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, August 07, 2021 - 11:16 pm: Edit

Alan

Look at the size of the ADD and a drone rack on the deck plans. No way does that work.

As for a phaser-2, you are replacing a zero-energy weapon with an energy-cost weapon. Where are you getting the power? Without adding power, you aren't adding the phaser.

Fill the ADD with type-VI drones and be happy I didn't replace it with a hot tub for the crew to relax in.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, August 08, 2021 - 07:03 pm: Edit

I want the hot tub in my PFs

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 12:34 am: Edit

SVC,

If the alternate weapon systems won't physically fit into the space of an ADD, so be it. But I do have to say that I don't think the "Where are you getting the power?" argument holds up particularly well. Like the Kzinti drone-armed PF, the Klingon G1 has power "surplus to requirements". Converting the ADD (which I acknowledge may well be impossible from an engineering standpoint) to a phaser-2 would merely mean it would have slightly less surplus power. Or to put it another way, my suggested conversion of the G1 would still require less power that the already-existing G1P "Phaser PF" or G1B "Assault PF".

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 12:45 am: Edit

You cannot replace the ADD with anything other than these choices:
1. hot tub
2. BBQ smoker
3. wine cellar (bad vintages but plenty of cheese!)

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 12:46 am: Edit

I'll take the wine cellar with some good vintages, please!

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 01:31 am: Edit

Okay, here's another suggestion, not for a new type of PF but a new (sort of PF tender); the "Strike PFT".

I need to stipulate the suggestion is not original with me. It comes originally from (I think) Robert Cole. My apologies both to him and to whoever did originate the idea, if I am misremembering the origin.

The strike PFT would essentially be the PF counterpart of the heavy cruiser-based strike carrier. It would not have special sensors, but would be a"true PFT" with the ability to carry a standard flotilla, and the Repair systems to keep them operational. If you look at something like the D7V (to consider using the Klingons as an example), but replace the fighter squadron with a PF flotilla and some Repair, you would have a strike PTF.

Note that some ships that more-or-less adhere to the "strike PFT" concept already exist; the Romulan Optimized Condor, for example. It's a dreadnought rather than a cruiser, but it has no special sensors and supports the combat with weaponry (and the PF flotilla, of course) rather than EW. The Lyrans also have some ships that already approximately meet the strike PFT criteria. A couple of days ago I proposed a possible Tholian "Strike PFT" in that proposal section. But other empires might be interested in such ships as well.

It could be argued that by basing your PF flotilla on a strike PFT rather than a more conventional CW-based PFT (with special sensors), you are loosing EW capability. But consider the following; your battle fleet includes both a heavy cruiser (or a CC) and a CW-based PFT (as well as other ships). Suppose instead that you change that cruiser to a strike PFT and the CW-based PFT to a CWS scout. the total cost of that battle fleet will be about the same. And you are loosing a little firepower, since the CC or CA conversion to a strike PFT will generally mean loosing some weapon or power systems, or both. But since most (though not quite all) CWPs only have two special sensors, converting the CWP to a CWS actually improves your electronic warfare capability. So the battle fleet as a whole would have slightly less weaponry but two more special sensors, which could be an attractive trade-off.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 01:54 am: Edit

Note also that although Robert Cole's original proposal was for strike PFTs based on CA or CC hulls, the example of the Romulan ROC, or some of the big Lyrans, shows that some empires might choose to field dreadnought-based or BCH-based strike PFTs.

Well, isn't a dreadnought-based strike PFT a space control ship without fighters; surely a step backwards? But it would be cheaper than an SCS since you wouldn't have to pay for the fighter squadron. And if removing the fighters allowed re-installation of some of the weapons/power that almost all dreadnoughts lose when converted to an SCS, the overall result might be more "cost effective", depending on how good your fighters are. (I note that in F&E, all fighter squadrons are essentially equal, with a few exceptions such as the Fed "elite" fighters and the Hydran Stinger-Xs. But that's definitely not th case in SFB. In my opinion (for whatever that's worth), the ROC is much better value for the BPV than the Phoenix SCS.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 02:06 am: Edit

I take it that these are Andro War stuff (hmm, would work in GW) and (while you were not specific) retain full weapons of the original warship.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 02:47 am: Edit

I was thinking they would retain most of the weaponry, though usually not quite all of it. The D7V strike carrier, to continue with the previous example, has all the disruptors of the D7 cruiser, but loses the drones. The D7 cruiser has 3 ph-1s and 6 ph-2s (assuming K refit - which is available several years before PFs are) while the the D7V Strike Carrier has 5 phaser-1s and 4 phaser-3s, arguably a more efficient phaser suite. So compared to the standard D7, its direct fire is as good or better, but it doesn't have any integral drone capability, being entirely dependent on its fighters for that. I believe in F&E the D7 is "8" while the D7V is "7-8". That's generally the sort of capability I was thinking of, for a strike PFT. Specific systems lost would depend on the hull. I don't think the ROC loses any power or weapons at all compared to the standard Condor (though it is inferior to the Condor-H heavy dreadnought). Perhaps dreadnoughts (or at least some dreadnoughts) are large enough that the engineers and naval architects can figure out ways to "rearrange" things to handle a full PF flotilla with little or no loss of integral firepower.

By Steve Stewart (Stevestewart) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 07:44 am: Edit

I quite like the idea of a Strike PFT. Would you see these based on the respective strike carrier, or more directly on the base hull?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 08:40 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Next thing we know, there'll be proposals for a Romulan version with a RH Plasma D rack ...

---

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 08:58 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Well, isn't a dreadnought-based strike PFT a space control ship without fighters; surely a step backwards?

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 10:00 am: Edit

Mike,

I'm not really proposing that everyone gets ROC-equivalent ships. I used that as an example of an already-existing ship that fits the general pattern. There might be a few more DN-based strike PFTs (assuming the concept is ultimately approved) but I presume most such ships would be cruiser-based. In the "Tholian" proposal section, I suggested a specific Tholian strike PFT based on there so-called "Pocket Battleship". It's name notwithstanding, the ship kind of falls in the "more-than-CA-but-less-than-a-BCH" level. I think lots of empires would consider the strike PFT concept but some might base them on cruisers, some on dreadnoughts.