Mike,

I like the ideas being developed.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 09, 2021 - 07:07 pm: Edit

One thing that we haven’t discussed yet, is what replaced drone racks on those ships that needed the drones for direct combat.

The CSD racks just do not fill that gap.

Ships like the Federation DNL and the BCH.

More photons would work, but introduces shock which is a “bad thing” /-2{tm}

And there is still the conundrum of finding a no photon replacement for those Federation fighters that had significant drone load out (like the F-111, F-14D, and just what exactly does replace the F-15).

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, April 09, 2021 - 09:10 pm: Edit

Joe,

Thank you!

Jeff,

The above covers that.

The DNL just has to live with the four CDS. The BCH uses Ph-1s. Ships that actually rely on drones for primary offense just aren't made. Yes, that has an impact, but the phaser firepower saved by the CDS helps compensate for the nonexistent drones.

On the fighters, what replaces what is explicitly stated. The F-111 is replaced by F-21s or A-21s. (No, the 21s are not the equal of the F-111. See the Important note below.) The F-14 and F-15 are replaced by the F-11 and A-11. (Meaning a squadron of 12 F-14s or 12 F-15s are replaced by 6 F-11s and 6 A-11s. In a 24 fighter group with F-14s are replaced with F-11s.)

Important side note: In pretty much any context, if the Feds use gunboats (like here), they don't get F-111s. If the Feds use F-111s (like the main history), they don't get gunboats. They are mutually exclusive.

Also, it's CDS, for Close-in Defense System, not CSD.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, April 09, 2021 - 09:22 pm: Edit

One thought I've had over the last day is to change the damage for the energized CDS round. Instead of a fixed four points of phaser damage, how about 1-6 points of phaser damage? This would add variability to the damage (to the point of potentially doing 0 effective damage on a successful hit). However, it matches the damage done to a shuttle, making things a little more consistent.

Not sold on it, but I'm warming to it.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, April 10, 2021 - 09:19 am: Edit

Changing from a fixed 4 points of phaser damage to 1D6 against plasma would seriously weaken the CDS's anti-plasma ability since the 1D6 version does an average of only 1.5 points of degradation to a plasma torpedo.

1D6+1 would bring the average back to 2, with equal odds of 1, 2, or 3 points of degradation.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, April 10, 2021 - 09:26 am: Edit

Yes, that's a possible variation. I'm open to that, too. The reason I started at the base 1-6 is for the consistency. But that can always be adjusted as needed.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, April 10, 2021 - 11:27 am: Edit

I like four, no die roll, simple is good.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Saturday, April 10, 2021 - 12:40 pm: Edit

I'm with SVC, separate to hit and damage rolls are usually a waste of time, the random element is provided by the two hit roll. I'd be seriously tempted to let the CDS do a flat 4 points to shuttles too.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, April 10, 2021 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Ok. Four it remains.

I have also toyed with the idea of letting an energized shot damage SC5 targets like an unenergized shot will a shuttle. (Or just the four points. Either way.) I don't know if that's a good idea, or if it can even be justified.

I hesitate to change the shuttle damage, as it's important (I think, anyway) to keep the foundational ADD functions unchanged.

By Kenneth Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Monday, April 12, 2021 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Here is a suggestion. An energized shot does 4 pts of phaser damage to any target that is hit. This gives the CDS an equivalent or less damage ratio to a ph-3 if you account for the lost long range damage. Plasma D/K racks on ships that bolt can do more damage. This can just fire more often. If you think it needs more limits, I suggest that ships be limited to 4 energized shots per CDS per turn.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, April 12, 2021 - 05:19 pm: Edit

If I understand correctly, you are saying that the energized shot should just do 4 points of phaser damage to anything it hits. Is that correct? Even gunboats and ships? That would have the potential of making it a relative powerful weapon at a short range. I hesitate to open it that broadly.

As for limiting it, that is already done by having the power requirement. But, if there needs to be some other limit (max 4 per turn; max 1 per two impulses; something like that), I am fine with that for the energized shots if it is needed.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, April 12, 2021 - 06:16 pm: Edit

Hmmm, how about 4 to SC 6&7, 2 to SC 5 and 1 to SC4-0 ???

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, April 12, 2021 - 06:57 pm: Edit

Energized shots cost the same power as a Ph-G shot. Given the limited ammo, you won't get all that many more shots than a Ph-G would give you (fewer on some turns, maybe more on others). Inaccuracy means that energized shots will be less power efficient than a Ph-G. One shot per impulse except when using Aegis means that energized shots will have less crunch than a Ph-G.

But a weapon can be a lot worse than a Ph-G and still be too good for this.

Auto-kill vs. drones and 4 damage to other size class 6 and 7 targets (does not need to be energized against such targets unless the damage needs to be phaser damage). Energized does 4 to plasma and 2 to anything of size class 5 or larger.

IMAO that's not really significantly better than you'd have gotten with an G rack carrying a mix of Type VI and ADD which is mostly what this is replacing.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, April 13, 2021 - 09:18 am: Edit

How about this:

If it is not energized, it still works just like an ADD round against whatever an ADD round is effective against. And works like an ADD round.

When energized, it will then do 4 points of phaser damage against SC 6 and 7 targets and plasma, but 2 points of phaser damage to anything SC 5-0. That means it at least annoys a gunboat (or ship, for that matter), but by the time you are using it against an enemy ship, you are probably getting pretty desperate.

This means that it can damage drones and shuttles in either way. If energized it does the four points of phaser damage. If not energized it is insta-kill against drones or 1-6 against shuttles.

No matter what, the ADD to-hit table is used in all cases. That means only 2/3 chance to hit in the best case, and an average of 1/2 chance to hit overall. So, that means, on average, it will do 16 points against plasma (or shuttles) and only 8 points against gunboats (or ships).

That doesn't seem unreasonable.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, April 13, 2021 - 11:14 am: Edit

Against shuttles

Unenergized: Potential for six points of damage
Energized: four points of damage


Against standard, unmodified Type-IV drones

Unenergized: KILL
Energized: Two damage points remaining.


May I suggest that against targets normally damageable by ADDs, the CDS do normal ADD damage PLUS the four points?

End result?

Against shuttles and Type-H Drones (FD21.41): D6+4
Against non-Type-H Drones: KILL

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, April 13, 2021 - 12:01 pm: Edit

I like the differing effects. The reason is because I would expect the round to work differently depending on whether it was energized or not. The other thing is that this makes it more of a decision on what you want to do with it. It makes your choices about use much more deliberate and forced to be considered.

Now, maybe it should be "best of both worlds" and operate in the best possible way, but I kinda like the forced choice.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, April 13, 2021 - 12:17 pm: Edit

As a side note, I went through every Federation ship I have access to (ignoring X-ships) and I think the general rules work in 95% of the cases. And even some of the 5% will still follow the general rules, but would be listed just for clarity.

Two ships of note (that are still covered by the above notes) are the GSC and MS. In both cases, each has one or two drone racks on their original hulls. In both cases those drone racks are converted to early CDS racks that can't be energized. Neither predates Y140, so neither ever loses their base racks.

There are three other ships that require special exceptions: the BB, DNM, and NEC. The BB converts three racks in the rear hull to be Ph-1-360s. (This leaves six CDS racks.) The DNM coverts two of the racks in the added hull to Ph-1-LS and Ph-1-RS. (This leaves five CDS racks.) The NEC becomes the pre-aegis version of the NAC. (Giving it two photons and three CDS racks.) Pretty much everything else just swaps any drone racks (of any type) to CDS racks.

There is one minor mistake in the above sticky post. Any carrier that carries F-111s would instead carry gunboats, not heavy fighters. In such a case, the F-111s are replaced with gunboats and the cargo is replaced with repair. (If the ship carried F-111s and other fighters, the other fighters would convert as listed and the F-111s replaced with gunboats.) I'll see if I can get that line updated.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, April 13, 2021 - 04:59 pm: Edit

For comparison's sake, the damage chart for the short-range cannon (OE20.31) has three separate damage brackets: one for Size Class 7 targets, a second for Size Class 6, and a third for Size Class 5 and up. Notably, while ADDs treat tachyon missiles as shuttles, SRCs treat them as drones - which was the key historical reason why the Aurorans modified the ADD into the SRC in the first place.

However, the modifications to the base ADD system are extensive enough that an SRC cannot fire ADD rounds, nor can it launch type-VI drones; it can only fire its own purpose-built SRC ammunition.

If this new weapon is to be treated as an "unbuilt variant" of the ADD (in the sense that it would have been technically possible to field it, had the Feds chosen to do so), I would be concerned, if not outright disappointed, if it turned out to be more powerful than the "real" variant of the ADD which the SRC represents.

To put it another way, if this new weapon is to be more effective than an SRC in some ways (namely in its ability to damage plasma), I would hope that it would be less effective than an SRC in others, to the point where each represents a set of design compromises imposed by the base ADD system when pushed in one way or another.

On a side note, I'm sure the Aurorans wouldn't have minded an SRC-type weapon that worked against plasma, as there are a number of plasma-like weapons (such as implosion torpedoes, HEATs, or particle splitter torpedoes) which they have to worry about in their own galactic neighbourhood.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, April 13, 2021 - 07:36 pm: Edit

Again, I am not using FRA tech as a comparison. This is intended to be its own thing. Different tools for different purposes.

This is specifically intended to work against plasma. Without that, the weapon is functionally pointless. Anything else it can affect is a bonus. The point is to be "an ADD that damages plasma, too". Without that, honestly, it all falls apart.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, April 29, 2021 - 10:03 pm: Edit

The sticky post was updated. Mostly the changes are just cosmetic and clarifications. But, there were a couple changes.
- Fixed ALT3 to refer to ALT3 in R4J, which is what I meant in the first place.
- Specify that the gunboat photon has the same repair cost as the normal photon, preventing any quick repairs.
- Listed the BB drone replacements as it is an except to the general rule.
- Decided a version of the BCG does exist.
- Expressly remove SWACs and Third Way.
- Gave the F-6 9 damage points making it a combo of the F-16 and F-20. (Same for the E-6.)
- Filled the fighter group conversions out a bit.
- Listed the Mustang.
- Listed the available tenders.
- Added notes for Auxiliaries.

Also, the CDS has specifically not changed. The energized function still only affects plasma. That could eventually change, but I'm leaving it as is for now.

By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Saturday, September 11, 2021 - 06:49 am: Edit

For what it's worth, this idea is really exciting to me. The proposed rules seem really solid, and hit that sweet spot where they're quite straightforward and easy to learn, but would produce a profound difference in gameplay. I would *love* to see this published.

I also have a feeling that these non-drone Feds would be great to attract players who have a particular image of Star Trek space combat from the shows, and might be put off by Federation vessels launching waves of drones. The lack of drones would also massively reduce the bookkeeping aspect for new Fed players and help speed the game up.

Now let's see those Hellbore Hydrans!

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Saturday, September 11, 2021 - 02:57 pm: Edit

A fascinating and well articulated proposal.

--Mike

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, May 25, 2022 - 11:53 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Now let's see those Hellbore Hydrans!

---

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, May 25, 2022 - 12:02 pm: Edit

Back on topic, here are two things that have been updated in the proposal over time:
- Synchronizing the repair costs between ship and gunboat photons is not necessary and should not be done. Use the listed repair costs (which are different) and existing rules for downgraded repairs.

- What happens with the Orions was never listed. Outside ALT3 (where the Paravian Pirates are unchanged), in the other four alternate histories the YCR and YLR would use Ph-2s in the wings instead of drones. All other designs (including all MY designs and anything after) are unchanged. The CDS is home technology in Federation territory and may freely replace drone racks as desired (similar to how Pl-Ds are handled).

By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Wednesday, May 25, 2022 - 10:40 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

As it turns out, I did that a long, long time ago: Hydran Shipyard Entry

---