I propose a (conjectural) version of the (conjectural) Thunderbolt PF that replaces some or all of the photon torpedoes and/or drone racks with Type-F plasma torpedoes. The mission, of course, would be using the carronade against cloaked ships. The standard photon/drone rack Thunderbolts would always be the main Fed PF (for non-historical games or campaigns allowing it) but I could see some of these Type-F plasma PFs deployed to the Romulan front.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 12:48 pm: Edit

While I like the idea, Alan, I can't see it for two reasons. The first is that Plasma-F torpedoes were rare in Federation service and, as such, the logistical support for them was probably more of a headache than the weapons themselves were of benefit. The other is that, if the Federation wanted plasma armed gunboat support, I see them playing host to a visiting Gorn PFT rather than developing their own.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Because the Federation PFs are conjectural never-built designs, almost by definition you can propose this boat, or any other boat (disruptors, fusion beams, Hellebores, phaser-G armed, etc.). They are all just computer programs technically. Design wise, I do not think the drone-G rack is in a position to be converted to a plasma=-F, and I do not think two plasma-Fs on a PF are workable. The boats wind up being too specialized (in my opinion, debate is opened). I cannot see having one or two in case a cloaked raider shows up (Orion) anywhere. I cannot see having a flotilla on the Romulan front that cannot really be shifted to another front.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 02:45 pm: Edit

In one sense, this proposal boils down to which is more valuable in combat, (namely Drones vs Plasma). Given that Alan proposes that this be limited to hunting cloaked ships using plasma Carronade, it might be classified as a “one trick pony”. (In game speak, there is a chance that this is a “Rock, Paper, Scissors“ proposal.)

The second point is to follow up on what Petrick raised concerning the placement of the drone-G rack on the Fed Thunderbolt PF. Generally, drone racks are “omnidirectional “. Big word meaning that the weapon is not limited to firing arcs.

Plasma Torpedos are. They have launch tubes which are fixed in a single direction. Think of the real world Dreadnought designs before and during WWI. Then, the issue was to mount as many large turrets on a ship as you could. As the ships grew larger designs, the standard two superimposed forward turrets and the two after superimposed gun turrets were supplemented with mid ships turrets or flank turrets (positioned on either the left of centerline or on the right of the centerline of the ship. H.M.S. Dreadnought had a couple of turrets like that, limited to firing on one side of the ship.

Alan’s proposed plasma thunderbolt might(theoretically...) be able to carry two plasma launchers, but if they were mounted in place of the Drone-G rack, one plasma might be limited to a left side firing Arc, while the second plasma launcher limited to a right side firing arc.

Worse yet, the plasma torpedos might not be able to launch plasma torpedos into the#1 shield facing arc. They might not even be able to launch into the #4 shield facing arc.

The real killer, is the possibility that a fed Plasma armed Thunderbolt PF might have to turn (best case)120 degrees to bring the second launch tube into a legal firing arc.

Worse yet, if they have to make three 70 degree turns for a 180 degree course change. Okay if you want to discourage pursuit. Not so good if your trying to overwhelm an enemy defense.

I might buy into the concept if it were a PF flotilla vs PF flotilla battle. Plasmas, if they hit, at short range, can do a number on any PF. If these plasma PFs can close range and launch 2 plasma torpedos against separate target ships, particularly if the enemy isn’t expecting Fed plasma PF s.

Of course, the second and subsequent battles, the opposition player will know what to expect and should be able to exploit the weaknesses.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 03:22 pm: Edit

SPP,

Regarding the suitability of the Type-G drone rack for conversion, I do note that there is a "Thunderboomer" that has two photons and one drone rack, rather than the two drone racks and one photon of the standard Thunderbolt. So a two plasma-F, one drone rack version should be workable.

Is this sufficient? Well, I note there is a version of the Romulan Starhawk PF with only two plasma-F torpedoes (I forget the specific designation). That PF does have more phaser firepower than the proposed Fed. But the Fed would still retain one drone rack.

And a flotilla with some (or all) of its non-Scout PFs converted to this plasma-F version could be transferred to the Klingon front as easily as any other Fed PF flotilla could be. The real issue is that it would be less effective than a standard Thunderbolt flotilla on that front. But that's not the same thing as "can't" be transferred.

Or why do specialized ships exist at all? The Klingons have a version of the D5 (again, I don't recall the specific designation off the top of my head) that looses the B-racks and instead has four ADD. It can be very useful against Kzinti or Hydrans (no drones for the latter, but the ADDs can hurt Stingers trying to close to optimum fusion beam and phaser-G range), is useful against some Federaion forces, bit is far inferior to the standard D5 against Tholians (unless the Klingon is worried about the Tholian fighters... in which case - check the dosage on the Klingon's medications). It's clearly more specialized than the standard D5, but the Klingons actually built a few.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 04:15 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

Given the average plasma boat has four (4) plasma-F torpedoes, and the next boat (the ISC) has at least 3, I do not see the fact that the Romulans also fielded a phaser version with only two plasma-Fs as justifying the Federation having only two. The Romulan version made sense because they. have to deal with Federation drones. And, let's face it, phasers do not run out of plasma-D torpedoes (which they also fielded). A standard plasma boat has a three turn arming cycle to consider, and two plasma-Fs do not do a good job of covering that gap (although you are counting on the every turn firing of the carronade, which is too short ranged if you are not hunting cloaked ships, an issue that does not apply to the StarHawk or the Centurion, or even the Decurion, simply because they cannot use Carronades). So, no. I do not see this design as being useful within the Federation looking for the occasional cloaked raider (whether Romulan or an Orion pirate with a cloak encountered further in the Federation). I do not find the even shorter range of the weapon failing to intergrate well in larger fleet actions (a few carronade boats being sacrificed or have reduce firepower versus larger numbers of standard boats). I am not in favor of having different arming cycles so that boats spend a turn waiting for the other boats to finish arming before the attack. (three turns for a Plasma-F, two turns for a photon) just so we can have a few boats floating around to use the Carronade. But that ia me, and it must be admitted that among my favorites was the original design of the D5F, which still bear the names I gave them before they were redesigned to end technology sloshing (allowed now only for the Federation) and became those "anti-fighter cruisers" you referred to (if memory serves).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 05:01 pm: Edit

So be it.

Though, as a preferred Tholian (one-turn disruptors and two-turn photon torpedoes), I don't see the different arming cycles as that big a deal. I long ago got used to that.

A point about the short range of the carronades: Even more than X-ships, PFs are capable of fighting at extremely high speeds. They can "choose the range" against almost anyone except another PF, or a megafighter, unless the enemy is willing to sacrifice substantial firepower to maintain speed..

So... consider the following hypothetical Fed PF flotilla; three Thunderbolts (including the leader) with standard armament, two Thunderbolts that replace the photon + two drone racks with two plasma-F + one drone rack, and the scout. I submit that, while there are clearly circumstances in which a bog-standard Thunderbolt flotilla would be better; the hypothetical mixed flotilla is better against cloaking enemies and still... good enough... to be used in a lot of other situations, even if it is less-than-optimal. I think the mixed flotilla is still decent (though less good than a standard flotilla) against a Klingon G1 flotilla, should some emergency force the Feds to deploy it to that front.^*

But since you disagree, well as I said, so be it.


^*Actually, I think a standard Thunderbolt flotilla crushes a standard G1 flotilla. Partly, this is a result of the Fed phaser-1s vs. Klingon phaser-2s. I think the Feds have enough "slack" in that fight that replacing two Thunderbolts with the less capable (against the Klingons) plasma version still leaves them with decent chances. But YMM, as they say, V.

Just my .02 quatloos worth.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 05:21 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

Do not confuse expressing opinion with "no," or this clarification with "yes." As I said before "the debate is opened." I am expressing opinions based on my own experience. Generally I do. not like mixing short ranged plasma-Fs with long range photons, I wind up with one ship that is not really participating in the battle until the others have reached a point of closing with overloads, or expending effort to cover for a ship that lacks heavy weapons during the reloading cycle.

As to arming cycles. Disruptors arm continuously, except when you leave them empty to achieve speed. Photons take two turns, but with single turn arming disruptors and phasers to make up the difference it does not seem as much as when you are trying to coordinate three turn arming weapons with one (phasers) and two (Photons) arming weapons.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Comment/correction: My initial response was based on poor memory. having looked at the Federation PF, I could agree to its replacing the photon and both drone racks with plasma-F-FP., resuming in their being slightly inferior to some extent to the ISC boats, a little more compared to the Gorn boats, and nearing parity to the Romulan StarHawks. Beyond the problem with their one trick pony remains.,

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 05:51 pm: Edit

There's also the matter the the Federation didn't make all that many plasma-F launchers for ship use. While a PF launcher is arguably a stripped down, "disposal" version (both lighter to fit on a gunboat and cause it has an expected maximum service life of a year or two max), that's still more design and development the Federation would have do on a weapon that is essentially regarded as a failed experiment by Star Fleet.

But as a conjectural thing, a "It's doubtful that even a gunboat using alternate Federation would have made this but here's the SSD for you to experiment with" is not something I feel would be a wasted chunk of page in K@ or a Captain's Log.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 06:05 pm: Edit

I've gotta say it never occurred to me to put Pl-F on a Thunderbolt. Which is kinda odd as I have suggested both the K1 (Romulan version of the G1 with Pl-F) and, of all things, a Pl-F armed Freedom Fighter. And, looking at things, a Pl-F Thunderbolt is kinda obvious.

Anyway, I am all for it. Would I personally use it? Nah. If I want a weirdo Pl-F gunboat, there are too many other, better choices. But, this isn't for me.

Quite simply, there are a LOT of people who absolutely LOVE their carronades. They want a 4xPl-F Gorn HDD because they love carronades so much. They probably fly 5xPl-F Orion BRs because of it. This love is why the Pl-F version of the NCL and DW exist. So, a 3xPl-F, or, just to be fun, a 1xPhot;2xPl-F version of the Thunderbolt would just bring the carronade fans joy.

So, I am completely down for a 3xPl-F or 1xPhot;2xPl-F version of the Thunderbolt. Call it the Thunderflame and let's get it on!

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, August 24, 2021 - 12:14 am: Edit

I see two down sides for this idea, the amount of Pl-F production that would need to occur to have enough of these to matter, and Federation doctrine.

As to SPP's argument for plasma vs. photons, the difference between a range-8 overloaded photon shot vs. a range 12 photon shot, doesn't make a lot of difference on a pl-F, yes they can turn away and drop the damage a bit, but a speed-40 pl-F is still likely to hit harder than the photon did, possibly on a different shield. The three turn arming cycle sucks, but only if you want full power pl-Fs. Upside on the Klingon front, a one turn carronade will have a 2/3s chance kill a Type-I drone, in even ECM conditions.

All in all, I can see a reasonable argument for one, or at most two, on Thunderbolt flotillas. IF the Feds can build the pl-Fs in enough numbers.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, August 24, 2021 - 08:12 am: Edit

Hunt cloaked ships with Fed PFs?

They take turns closing to range 0 to fire Phasers.

Hold Photons for when they start to decloak...

Alternately leader cruises by in front and drops a TBomb. Rest of the flotilla unloads at range 2 from the rear and then everyone hets away.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, August 24, 2021 - 02:09 pm: Edit

All in all, after having read the posted comments, I find myself conflicted.

I like new toys, and a Fed Plasma PF in theory, should be in the right address.

It is not, and that may be because the way game play works between Drones vs Plasma.(and cloaked ships).

Yes, Romulan cloaks, (when used well) can make using drones into an exercise in futility. That is part of the challenge that makes Star fleet battles fun to play... planning ahead on how best to use drones effectively, along with choosing what types of drone to use in the first place.

On the few occasions I faced Romulans, most of the players were hesitant to close the range. Those plasma Rs are very respected. As a result, combat mostly stayed at medium ranges of 10+ hexes, because the players didn’t make the distinction between plasma torpedos types.

(Yes, I know PFs do not have plasma R torpedos. The players I gamed with, lived in fear of plasma, didn’t care if it was pseudo or type F or whatever.)

Those foolhardy players willing to rush in, where more experienced players approached cautiously, tended to die in large explosions.

The subsequent battles tended to fall into the plasma ballet routine, and what drones were launched tended not to hit the intended targets.

I may feel differently when I lay out the maps, place counters, and try using these Fed plasma PF’s... but the Kzinti in me wants to close, anchor and drone kill my enemies.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, August 24, 2021 - 04:30 pm: Edit

I wanted to address the charge that the proposed plasma-armed Thunderbolt is a "one trick pony". The problem, it seems to me, is that that the charge is applied inconsistently. SFB has always, going back to the original Federation Scout, included highly-specialized ships.

It could be argued that the scout isn't really a "one trick pony" in the same way; specialization against a single opponent. If you already have a Fed battle fleet with several major warships, adding a scout strengthens the capabilities of the battle fleet as a whole much more than adding a conventional destroyer would; whether you are fighting the Klingons, Romulans, or Andromedans. But the same cannot really be said of Escorts. They are much less useful against some forces that others. If a Klingon D7V carrier group is marauding in Federation space, its excorts will prove very useful if the Feds send a CVS group to intercept it. But battles are not always "like-versus-like". If instead the Feds dispatch a cruiser squadron, with very limited drone capability and no fighters at all, to intercept the D7V, the Klingon would have been better off with conventional warships rather than escorts. (Yes, the escorts also retain a limited capability to directly support the D7V's fighters. I maintain this is not nearly enough to compensate for their reduced capability against enemy warships, absent a robust enemy seeking weapon threat.)

And what about the Tholian web tenders, with huge amounts of power for their hull size, and virtually no weapons? They exist solely for the highly specialized role of web support. While most of these are auxiliaries built on freighter hulls, two are based on warship hulls; the Police Web Charger Destroyer and Web Charger War Destroyer.

So I think it is insufficient merely to say that a plasma-F arned Thunderbolt is a "one trick pony". The correct questions in determining whether such a ship is plausible are;

How much it would cost to impelment the design?

How much better are they in their specialized intended role (dealing with cloaked opponents) than other Federation options?

How much worse are they if an emergency forces them to be used in roles for whcih they were not intended (such as deployment to the Klingon front)?

I will try to address these issues in a later post, which might be this evening but will more probably be tomorrow or the next day.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, August 24, 2021 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Alex Chobot:

I belive the history of the Federation plasma-F launchers does not say the Federation developed their own, but utilized Gorn plasma-F launchers adapted for use by the Federation, and the numbers of those appear to have been limited. There are a couple of FFs, a couple of DWs, a couple of DDLs, a couple of NJFs, and a couple of BCFs. All told about a dozen to two dozen plasma-F tubes. Supporting PFs would qt least double that, if not more.

Which, again, as long as it is all conjectural is not really a problem.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, August 24, 2021 - 08:48 pm: Edit

SPP,

Don't forget the dreadnoughts! Concordat and Entente were both converted to DNFs.

I always liked the DNFs because I have always had a fondness for "one off" (two off in this case, I guess) oddball ships.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, August 25, 2021 - 09:48 am: Edit

The early ship descriptions are very clear that any Pl-F systems the Federation used were all Gorn made. It is explicitly listed as a "foreign technology". So, as Petrick states, the Federation never produced the weapon themselves.

I don't know what an NJF is (I assume it is meant to be the Pl-F carrying version of the NCL or NCA, but I don't know which one). But, there are Pl-F carrying versions of the FF, DD, DW, NCL, NCA, BC, and DN. Assuming two of each, that gives a total available number of Pl-F systems in use at 15 (the DWL has 3). There were canonically three BCFs, but that only brings it up to 17. And I don't remember, but the NCL version might have been unbuilt, lowering the total. Allowing for an extra ship or two, back-up systems, and replacement systems, Petrick's limit of two dozen fits perfectly.

However, this could fit very nicely in the back story of the Pl-F gunboat. Part of the conjectural supposition could be that the gunboat making Federation *did* start making their own Pl-F systems. If that happened, it would allow for more of those other ships, but also allow them to additionally make plasma-armed gunboats.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 25, 2021 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Going back to Alan’s original post/proposal.

Primary mission is to hunt cloaked ships.

Method: replace some or all Fed Thunderbolt photons and drones with plasma torpedo launchers.

Specific tactic to be used, use the plasmas in carronade mode (I.e. direct fire as opposed to launching plasma torpedos.)

Since I have limited experience in carronades... I would like to ask a general question for any one willing to answer:

Is using modified Fed Plasma PFs armed with plasma torpedo launchers firing carronades (for some reason, it is ringing a bell. That bell happens to be labeled “really poor accuracy.”) a viable tactic?

Is it changing drone racks (which can launch drones every turn until it needs to reload.) and photon torpedos (which require 2 turns to reload.) for a three turn arming cycle carronade?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, August 25, 2021 - 11:06 pm: Edit

The carronade is highly accurate, can fire every turn, and has an incredibly short range. These features are what make it a useful cloak-hunting weapon. There is a reason people love this weapon.

Also, it is not just useful for cloak-hunting. Its biggest weakness is the very short range. But outside that, it has a lot of utility.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, August 26, 2021 - 10:38 am: Edit

Regarding my questions at 4:30 PM on 24 August:

How much it would cost to impelment the design? Per SPP's post from 6:03 PM on 24 August, in one sense it doesn't really matter since this is a conjectural design. But suppose the Federation really had fielded PFs. How much of an additional economic and logstical strain wold these "Thunderflame" PFs (I quite like Mike West's suggested name) have placed on their economy?

I submit it would place little strain, relative to the size of the economy (the strongest in Alpha) as a whole. Some, yes. But given the very large numbers of plasma-F systems fielded by the Gorns, Romulans, and ISC; I think we can say confidently that the plasma-F is not intrinsically an expensive or difficult system to produce or support. I grant that due to economies of scale and the greater familiarity of those three empires with plasma weapons in general they might pay less per torpedo than the Feds, with only very limited numbers of such systems, would. But I can't believe the difference would be critical, especially since the Gorns would presumably be willing to sell the Feds more plasma-F launchers, or help them set up an efficient production facility. Assuming the Feds had deployed PFs at all, the incremental costs and logistics strain for fielding some Thunderflames, while not zero, should be quite manageable if the tactical benefits were worth it. I will address what I see as the tactical pros and cons (the second and third questions from my 4:30 PM / 24 August post) later.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 26, 2021 - 02:40 pm: Edit

Given that the Federation sold the F-12 production lines to the Gorns to produce G-12 fighters... it seems plausible that the Gorns could sell a similar capacity to the Federation. (Perhaps it should be a rule, a fixed capacity of plasma F launchers per month? Set it at whatever level you want. Perhaps 1 per month? That would limit production to 3 frigate plasma ships per six months...

Edited for typo.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, August 26, 2021 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Correction: The Federation never bought the F-12. The Company that was developing the F-12 for the Federation sold it to the Gorns after the Federation rejected it.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, August 26, 2021 - 04:15 pm: Edit

Assuming the Federation had deployed PFs at all, how much better would Thunderflames be than Thunderbolts, against cloaked opponents?

As Mike Grafton points out in his 24 August 8:12 AM post, Fed PFs would have other ways of attacking cloaked Romulans. My objection is that these methods greatly increase the risk of mines. I assume that's why Mike posted "They take turns closing to range 0 to fire Phasers." By taking turns, he avoids having the entire flotilla wiped out by a single NSM, or at least have all their front shields wrecked by a single T-bomb. Still, attacking cloaked Romulans in this way would require multiple passes and a flotilla might take significant damage over time. Carronades would allow some of the PFs to engage from 5 hexes away, greatly reducing the mine / T-bomb risk. It's not that a standard Thunderbolt flotilla couldn't engage cloaked enemies, but that Thunderflames would tend to suffer fewer losses while doing so. This strikes me as a significant advantage for carronades compared to most other Federation options; they can threaten significant damage (over time - we're not talking about killing the Romulan in one crushing alpha-strike) to force them to uncloak, while minimizing the danger to the Fed PFs.

Once Romulans uncloak, the PFs could hit them with photon torpedoes (only three in my hypothetical flotilla - five in a standard Thunderbolt flotilla), phasers, drones, and launched Type-F plasma torpedoes; which hit for 20 at close range, as opposed to 16 for a fully-overloaded photon, all be it with a slower rate of fire. But then, once the photon torpedo has fired, it's two turns before it will be available again. A Type-F plasma with carronade capability can be launched as a plasma torpedo on one turn and then fired as a carronade (approximately equivalent to a phaser-1 at five hexes) on the immediately following turn.

One final point to consider is range. On a Fed ship photon torpedoes (non-X-tech) have a range of 30 hexes regardless of ship size. So converting, say, a DD to a DDL replaces two long range weapons with two much shorter ranged ones. But on a PF the photons only have a range of 12 to begin with. So the problem of reduction in effective range is much reduced. A carronade could fire to range-5 every turn or be bolted to range-10 once every three turns. If launched as a seeking weapon of course, the effective range depends a lot on target movement and whether the PFs have the sabot refit.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, August 26, 2021 - 04:45 pm: Edit

PF photons have a range of eight for overloads, to every other turn could do as much as 16 points of damage. Over six turns that is 48 points of damage. Plasmas in seeking mode at that impact at five hexes score 20 points of damage, over six turns that might be 40 points of damage. Bolted is it 10 points of damage, or 20 points of damage over six turns. At five hexes range.

At eight hexes range a bolted plasma-F is no better than a standard photon (eight points of damage, 50% shcnace of a hit) but takes more power to arm (five points. versus four) and over six turns will score at most 16 points of damage where standard photons might score 24 points of damage (two turn arming).

Again, the plasma-Fs are "one trick ponies" that being they have the carronade function. And it is assumed they will be able to. use it because the opponents they run into will or course cloak and be vulnerable to it.