Archive through May 05, 2022
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
(FP) Plasma:
Plasma version of the AFD?:
Archive through May 05, 2022
One thing said about Plasma-K torpedoes is they were almost exclusively used (by Romulans) in a counter drone role.
That got me thinking...
Because (almost) anything is possible in simulators, could there be a simulator weapon system that combines the Gatling Phaser (of the Canon FRAX AFD) with a Plasma Rack?
Here's what I'm picturing...
A system, possibly used by Triaxians or Canadi'ens, combines a Gatling phaser with the four chambers of a Plasma-D launcher. The weapon is fed by the ships Phaser Capacitor and can, once per impulse, fire either a Phaser-3 shot OR launch a Plasma-K.
Since the Plasma-K is armed with 1/4 point of energy, the same energy as is required to fire a single Phaser-3 shot from a Gatling Phaser, I propose that this weapon may be armed with no more than one point of energy per turn.
The firing options for a single turn are limited to no more than four shots of either type; if three shots are made in the turn as a Phaser-3, then there can be no more than one Plasma-K launched by it.
Furthermore, the system is unable to Bolt the Plasma-K; it may only launch it as a seeking weapon.
Anyhootch, this is something that's been bubbling around in my cocoanut and I thought I'd put it out there (and yes, I know, it's WAAAAY out there... 
)
Any thoughts?
Oh! Almost forgot.
There's one more rule about it, as I've been picturing this system; as with the Canon AFD, it may only be targeted on Size Class 6 and 7 targets.
Plasma-Ks are in a stasis canisters - "the plasma-K was even smaller than the plasma-D and was, like it, held in a stasis canister" so what you are proposing is a plasma launcher that creates a plasma-K sized torpedo. It does not seem like it would be a warp seeker either so would it get the (FP13.2) warhead strength adjustment?
The biggest conceptual obstacle I see for this is that most simulator empires are created to be a problem for their own empire's technologies, not someone else's. So, the simulator empires using this would need to have been created by the Fed (or Klingons), not the Romulans or Gorns.
That said, maybe this is a modification to the Triaxians made by the Feds after the Gorns shared their simulator files.
(None of this is meant to express any opposition to the idea. It is merely to point out a likely obstacle that you'd need to be prepared to overcome.)
Respectfully, Ken, I did say that the system would have the same four canisters for the Plasma-K torpedoes as a standard Plasma Rack has for Plasma-D torpedoes.
Still, if I had screwed that up, I'd want to be told.
To your point, Mike, I have no answer. The best WAG I have is MAYbe a Romulan Exchange Officer participated in a simulator event while stationed with the Klingons and reported on the AFD.
(Given how many different carrier types the Romulans have, I'd imagine THEY'd be the ones most likely to come up with this sort of system...)
MAYbe a disgruntled, cashiered Klingon working with the Orion Syndicates smuggled simulator information to the Alliance.
Or, who knows; MAYbe it's just another one of those amazing parallels, like all races, from the Peladine and Borak to the ISC all using virtually identical Phaser 1s and 3s, despite being so geographically distant from one another.
(You're not buying that, are you? )
Hi Jeff,
I did not get that from reading the description. I interpreted "The weapon is fed by the ships Phaser Capacitor and can, once per impulse, fire either a Phaser-3 shot OR launch a Plasma-K." meaning this was an energy weapon (phaser/plasma torp launcher).
Ken, I think I see what the confusion is.
I don't have the rules in front of me, but I remember them saying that, in addition to the canistered round, Plasma-K require 1/4 point of energy to charge.
I was reading it when I first posted the proposal but, in my (neurotic? ) desire to get it posted, I was VERY sloppy in how I did so.
Hopefully, we're on the same page now?
Anyhow, hoping to clarify things better, I'd like to reiterate that the weapon is limited to four firings per turn. Each one, whether it's a Phaser-3 shot OR arming/launching a Plasma-K, requires 1/4 unit of energy, so the weapon is allowed to use no more than 1.0 points of energy per turn.
Due to the ammunition requirements for the Plasma-K Torpedoes, the weapon may fire no more than the four in it before the whole weapon, not just the Plasma-K portion of it, needs to be taken off line for reloading.
Does this make sense?
Jeff got me thinking of the PRAX empire, the plasma-armed version of the FRAX empire. Replace half of the disruptors with plasma-S, half with plasma-F (all plasma-F on size-4 units), replace drone racks with plasma-D racks, replace AFD with pl-K/ph-G combo weapon. Klingon simulator empire inspired by visiting Romulan officers.
SVC would you limit the plasma arcs or keep them "wide?"
SVC would you limit the plasma arcs or keep them "wide?"
The PRAX would be fun.
Since the ADF already have wide 180 degree arcs and Pl-D have 180 degree arcs, I would expect the plasma-K version of the ADF to also be 180 degrees.
Would SC2 ships be able to use Pl-R, or be limited to Pl-S?
Oooo. For submarines, how about replacing axion torpedoes with Pl-F one-for-one (even on SC3 subs), but they have the special ability to fire carronades while under cloak? They can't launch or bolt plasma under cloak, but they can fire carronades. Would that work? It would be different! (I assume the SCL would just use the standard disruptor replacement and it's Pl-F would NOT have the carronade ability. I'd ignore the missile racks.)
EDIT: Can the PRAX be done in the next Captain's Log? Both SFB and FC? I think the PRAX would definitely be fun for both!
Given that the PRAX would solely exist in the simulator...
Could they use Plasma-A torpedoes instead of Plasma-S?
Could they make use of the "Unreal Plasma Enhancements" found in the Stellar Shadows Journals?
Could I get lynched for going further with these ideas?
They can do and use whatever Steve wants them to. If I did it, probably not. I would want the PRAX to have as few "enhancements" as possible to stay inline with the flavor of the FRAX. But it is Steve's idea, so he would have to decide what to do.
It just dawned on me what the biggest problem with the PRAX is: they are built around the FX and RX arcs. (It is literally the genesis of their name.) Plasma does not have FX and RX arcs. So ... do they take that additional simulator step to get FX and RX arcs for their plasma, or do they have to live with FP and AP arcs? That's probably the main design decision that has to be made for them.
(This probably also answers my Pl-R question: with the expanded arcs, that probably rules out using Pl-Rs unless he wants to go even further into simulator space.)
Perhaps one could place the fore and aft plasma launchers into rotatable turrets, akin to those on Worb or Imperium ships?
As in, the forward turret could be rotated from FP to either LP or RP, but be limited to rotations of no more than 60* at a time. Similarly, the aft turret could rotate from AP to either LPR or RPR, or vice versa.
A ship with a large enough turret to mount a plasma-R would be limited to FA, LF+L, or RF+R arcs to forward; or RA, L+LR, or R+RR to aft.
-----
On a side note: if one were to assume that copies of this simulator software were turned over to the Auroran Navy by the Klingons (and/or Lyrans) that arrived in the Y170s, perhaps a further set of variants might use the kind of plasma-like weapons the Federal Republic would have experience dealing with: such as Trobrin implosion torpedoes, Probr HEATs, or perhaps even Omega-Paravian quantum wave torpedoes (should it be formally confirmed at some point that they actually use those).
Actually, now I'm wondering if the ISC colony which showed up in the late Y170s had any Barbarian simulator SSDs on file - and if the Auroran academy instructors subsequently "deployed" those ships with Omega weapons installed in their option mounts...
I would just make the arcs as close to 240 degrees as I could figure out.
Fair enough.
Actually, in looking over the Frax YCA (YR51.2) in Captain's Log #42, that ship has FH and RH arcs for its disruptors. So there's a precedent for any Prax ships to have reduced launch arcs in turn.
Also, according to the SFB "update" data in CL42, the Klingons had set up diplomatic channels with the Romulans at some point after the arrival of the Holdfast sphere. It was data acquired through these channels that led the Klingons to develop Early Years Frax subs - complete with masking and veiling devices. So it's possible that the origins of the Prax might go back further than expected, perhaps long before the Treaty of Smarba was signed.
SVC, if I may, I think I just MIGHT have an idea...
Imagine, if you would, the Plasma Torpedoes being mounted in the same sort of turrets as the Worb use? In these turrets, the Plasma launchers are treated as if they're in fixed launchers (FP3.1). If the turrets are centered (i.e.: the forward turret is facing Direction 1), as per rule (FP3.11), the torpedo is launched in direction 1 and may only be launched against targets in the FP arc.
I think the rotated turret would be covered by the "Fixed Gorn Launchers" rule (FP3.12), namely...
... If the turret is rotated to Starboard, the torpedo is launched in direction 2 and may only be fired against targets in the RF+R arcs, AND
... If the turret is rotated to Port, the torpedo is launched in direction 6 and may only be fired against targets in the LF+L arcs.
Naturally, the rear turret would be the same, only centered around the RA.
This might also make for another differentiation from the FRAX; what if the phasers had their firing arcs defined by the turret facing (again, like the Worb).
Perhaps PRAX can only mount 120 degree Phaser 1s in their turrets? Forward turret can have them firing FA (turret in direction 1), RF+R (turret in direction 2), or LF+L (turret in direction 6).
By contrast, if the PRAX could mount Phaser 3s with 240 degree arcs, based on the turret orientation, then they'd be FX (turret in direction 1), RS+LF (turret in direction 2), or LS+RF (turret in direction 6).
(OH! Would it be unseemly to ask that the AFP NOT be mounted in the turrets? Thanks! )
Love the idea of the PRAX. I also like Mike's idea of giving PRAX subs carronades under cloak rather than Axion Torpedoes, very cool.
Re: plasma enhancements -- I can't help but think the Plasma Scattergun/Buck & Ball rules fit thematically with the PRAX really well. They're firing modes specialised for fending off waves of drones and fighters, after all.
For what it may be worth, my thoughts on plasma arcs would be;
Pl-R: NA
Pl-M/S/G: FP or AP
Pl-L/F: LPF, RPF, LPR, RPR.
Essentially mimicking some of the early pre-dreadnaughts.
No worb turrets. The klingons had not heard of the worb until decades later.
Personally, I'd stick with "real" rules for the most part. So, FP and AP arcs for the fore and aft torpedoes; LS and RS for the plasma racks; existing AFD arcs for the plasma AFD.
The main "new" rules would be the plasma AFD itself, plus the "carronade under cloak" idea for the submarines. I would likely just give the "carronade under cloak" plasmas a new name (plasma-K?) just to be clear they are different.
I would use the Pl-R on the BB only, but I would leave it with the standard FA (and if used, RA) arcs. The DN would be restricted to Pl-S at most.
The reason for keeping things relatively "vanilla" is because, for me, one of the big things about the FRAX is that they predominantly use standard technology, with a very few specific exceptions (AFD, Axion, Missiles). I would think that the PRAX should keep this same guiding principle, and their exceptions would just be the plasma AFD and cloak-carronade.
But, again, this is just my opinion. Steve will do whatever Steve wants to do. Assuming he ever even gets time to do it.
Also, if I was going to use turrets, I'd just reuse Qari turrets (since the rules are literally right there) and just make them much smaller. Similar to Borak turrets, but even smaller.
In that case, the plasmas would be restricted to 60 degree arcs (no swivels), but the turret itself would be able to migrate to cover the full 270 degree arcs, whether fore or aft.
I guess it's a matter of perception I don't really see the FRAX as 'vanilla' -- they've got more new rules than the Flivvers or Triaxians, and the AFDs, Axions, Catfish drones, and missile racks feel like significant changes from the norm. For me their defining characteristics are the firing arcs, and the wet-navy resemblance via submarine warfare and robust anti-fighter/drone defences.
That's why I like the Scattergun/Buck & Ball options for the PRAX -- the rules are easy to use and provide flexible fighter/drone defence.
While I'm fantasising, it'd be fun to see some plasma equivalents to missile racks/Catfish drones. For the missile racks, maybe some sort of Multiple Plasma Launch System (MPLS) -- a beefed-up Plasma-D rack that allows one shot per impulse in offensive mode. For a taste of Catfish-ness, let the MPLS launch Pl-Ds under cloak using Tame Boar targeting.
For cloaked carronades, what about naming them Plasma-C? To go along with the Plasma-C, maybe some toned-down variation of Cloaked Plasma Launch (JFP8.0) could be looked at too.
Okay, maybe this is just me going SUPER crazy, but what about an advancement on the Q'Naabian Plasma Drone technology?
Module C6 presented an excellent view of the advancement of Carnivon Death Bolts as weapons that could be programmed to redirect (their containerized) destructive energies into other uses. What about an advancement of Plasma Drones that allows energy from the arming ship to be allocated towards extra capabilities for the Plasma Drone?
Things like...
... The basic Plasma Drone has a speed of eight, but two points of energy gives it a speed of 12, four points gives it a speed of 20, and six points gives it a speed of 32.
... Each point of energy (up to six) put into EW gives the Plasma Drone one more point of ECM/ECCM
... The Plasma Drone has a base endurance of two turns, but every two points of energy (up to six) gives it another turn of endurance.
... The Plasma Drone has a base Damage rating of four, but each point of energy (up to six) gives it a one-point shield.
... The Plasma Drone has a base warhead strength of... Six? Anyhootch, each point of energy put into strengthening the warhead gives it an additional two points of warhead strength.
... The Plasma Drone can be fittted with a negative tractor shield. Each point of energy (up to six) will negate one point of tractor strength applied to the Plasma Drone.
(Sure, this can make for some awfully powerful single drones, but how many ships would be able to allocate some thirty six points of energy towards a single Plasma Drone?
Oh! Another thing about Plasma Drones? I'd imagine that, as a "Drone," they could be targeted by defensive plasma torpedoes, so that Plasma Drone that someone allocated some thirty six points of energy into could be countered by a single Plasma-K.
Isn't that a step back rather than an enhancement of the Plasma Drone? The basic Plasma Drone already goes speed 12 in the Early Years, why drop it to 8? Also warhead enhancements in the Y2 rules cost 1 point of energy for 4 more strength, so why drop it to 2 strength per point? You'd have to spend 5 points of energy to get it on par with a Y-era super-enhanced Plasma Drone, which normally costs 2.
Anyway I'm not sure this idea is really relevant to the PRAX. Maybe it'd be better explored in a separate thread, given enhanced plasma drones would presumably be an ISC simulator thing rather than Roms/Klingons?