You end up adding too many phasers. It then starts skewing how damage is taken. I felt it didn't work as well that way. That was actually my first approach. Plus, again, the idea is to keep things interesting, and I think my approach does that.

Besides, this is probably just a thought exercise, anyway. Unless Module R4J is selling like gangbusters, this will never see the light of day.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, July 30, 2022 - 12:35 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Basically, once Ph-Ts are introduced, no Fed ship would ever use Ph-3s. Not even the Pol.

---

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, July 30, 2022 - 01:47 pm: Edit

I assume it would be 2xPh-T as the refit. That is "two full boxes" like 2xPh-3s and a drone are. Two boxes for two boxes. But, getting back to my prior point, you are actually better off with 4xPh-3s. That is still "two full boxes" and takes damage better.

Also, whether the refit is 2xPh-Ts or 4xPh-3s, in effect they are just 1xPh-G, and we all know that won't fly. (Though they do take more power to use than a Ph-G, of course.) And that's why I keep going back to the above CDS approach. Just adding more phasers causes just as many, if not more, problems than it solves. Ergo the CDS.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, July 30, 2022 - 02:54 pm: Edit

Mike, even if this "Never sees the light of day," I think we're all enjoying it immensely, and isn't the purpose of these games to be sources of joy for all of us?

IMO, that alone makes it wonderfully worth it.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, July 30, 2022 - 03:16 pm: Edit

I wonder if we are all looking at this the wrong way?

Bottom line, the point is to replace the single drone G rack with a non drone alternative.

Why not just install a drone E rack the has only two types of ammunition?

One would be a regular ADD round, and a second, improved direct fire option that replaces a type VI dog fight drone?

Cap its maximum possible damage capacity to the same 2 points of damage that the existing type VI drone does to keep it BPV neutral, and allow it to inflict the same variable damage to shuttles, fighters and gun boats (PFs) that the type VI drone already does.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 30, 2022 - 03:27 pm: Edit

If it does that, why do you need an ADD?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, July 30, 2022 - 05:10 pm: Edit

SVC, we don’t actually have that.

Yes, we have the published ADD, but it only partially damages shuttles, does 2 points to PF’s, and does no phaser damage to plasma torpedo’s.

Ideally, this whatchacallit will be a direct fire weapon that REPLACES the existing ADD, and adds to it the characteristics of a phaser three without increasing the number and type of phasers on Federation ships.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Saturday, July 30, 2022 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Have you done any playtesting of these options? I mean you may be right about adding too many phasers but you're also removing an entire heavy weapon damage possibility? Let's consider a ship with a G rack that now has 2x ph-3. Yes, now it takes one more damage point to destroy that ship, and that's something. You also have another "weak" phaser to take a hit. Also something. But now 3s on the DAC go directly to a phaser then start hitting power. And of course every third phaser hit has to hit a ph-1 anyway. Also if they're RH they may not even be in arc. Maybe it is an issue on larger ships, but at least for single rack replacements I think it would work?

Also, I would assume in this alternate timeline there would be no dedicated "drone" ships, so you wouldn't ever have to worry about swapping in like 12 ph-3 for 6 drone racks.

So I think a "worst case" scenario might be (debatably) a Kirov (the debatable being if that is a variant never built) or the DNG with 4 racks each. In my original suggestion I was thinking split them LS/RS but on further reflection, I think limiting it to only 2 LS/RS and the rest RH might balance it better.

So just how crazy would a DNG with 2x ph-3 LS 2x ph-3 RS, and 4x ph-3 RH instead of 4x G-racks be? I don't know but my gut instinct is that's workable. I might actually give that a test run.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, July 31, 2022 - 12:26 am: Edit

I was responding to your proposal for an E-rack with two types of ammo, one the type you want and the other an ADD. Why would you want the ADD?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, July 31, 2022 - 01:21 am: Edit

ADD are effective against drones, fighters and shuttles, and have a higher damage yield verses shuttles, fighters and bombers than a single phaser three. (AND costs zero energy to reload.)

Phaser threes require energy for reloads,

I was thinking (and this has had zero playtesting, so may not be worth much...) that an improved type munition that is a quality improvement over the existing ADD round(increased range, better damage age yield, and a longer range that can inflict damage on a plasma torpedo would be useful.

We never got to discuss what disadvantages such a weapon might have. (Such as a myopic zone, useless at range of four hexes or less, larger drone space require et compared to a standard ADD round. Perhaps an energy cost to energize the munition that allows the long er range direct fire capacity.

Just assumed that if something were adopted, it would have some disadvantages compared to the ADD.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, July 31, 2022 - 09:33 am: Edit

A direct-fire type-VI drone has the same problem a Ph-T does: it is simple enough technology that everyone would have it. So, anyone that uses type-VI drones would switch to it because it is outright superior to a standard type-VI drone (and to ADDs).

In comparison, I do want to note that it is also highly likely that everyone else that uses ADDs could copy the CDS, too. But they won't (outside the Orions who are to also allowed to use it) because it solves a problem they don't have. So, unlike a direct-fire type-VI drone (or a Ph-T), the CDS would remain Federation-only.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, July 31, 2022 - 09:49 am: Edit

Again, the reason I decided against "just add Ph-3s" has multiple points:
- It does affect how damage is taken, with the increased number of boxes, lack of drone hits, and phaser padding.
- It is still adding the equivalent of one Ph-G to every ship in the fleet. If that wouldn't happen with an actual Ph-G, why would it happen doing it the "hard way"?
- On the larger ships (BC+) it actually becomes problematic to fit all of those boxes into the SSD.
- Quite frankly, it's a boring solution.

So, I moved on to what became the CDS.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, July 31, 2022 - 09:58 am: Edit

As a further idea I thought of and rejected, I also thought to replace each drone rack with an RH Ph-1. Figuring too many Ph-3s were a problem, "combine" them into a Ph-1 but keep it with an RH arc. That solves the too many boxes and damage taking issues, and mitigates the phaser padding.

But, I didn't think that adding all of those Ph-1s would pass muster, so I dropped that idea, too. Plus, it's not much more exciting than a forest of Ph-3s.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Sunday, July 31, 2022 - 12:18 pm: Edit

I was just trying to provide input that didn't involve new weapons/rules, which I thought was something that was a bullet point.

Between
1) New thing (CDS)
2) 1x Ph-1 per G rack
3) 2x Ph-3 per G rack

3 just seems most likely to "pass muster."

Minor point, AFAIR, most Fed ships that would be in a fleet would have 0-1 drone rack, only a minority would have 2+, so you wouldn't be adding a ph-g to each ship.

Anyway, just throwing in my .02 for a workable solution without adding rules.

I like the CDS, but any new weapon system brings all the baggage of "Is it balanced?" "Why doesn't everyone have it?" etc.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, July 31, 2022 - 12:25 pm: Edit

What;s wrong with a forest of PH-3s?? It'd be just like what they do in the movies now!!


Garth L. Getgen

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, July 31, 2022 - 01:13 pm: Edit

One thing to keep in mind with potentially adding phasers is the increase in phaser capacitor.

--Mike

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, July 31, 2022 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Nope, there was never a bullet point (from me) about not adding new technology. If it was, the CDS wouldn't have been included from the beginning.

When I say "adding a Ph-G" to each ship, I am referring to the refit as a whole. The core of most refits is 2xPh-3 and 1xDrone. Change that to 4xPh-3, and that is where the "adding a Ph-G" comes from.

And, again, the CDS, despite being a new system, is lower impact to the game overall and lower risk than adding in all of the Ph-3s. It is doing things in a very low risk manner, as it acts like an ADD and just has the new added ability to damage plasma. However, that damage to plasma is relatively minor and is directly comparable to the phasers that would replace it. As it is, it is an incredibly low-risk new system.

Adding the Ph-3s, on the other hand, completely changes the dynamics of how a ship takes damage, what the offensive damage output is and can be, and (as noted above and something I missed) increases phaser capacitor capacity. It may not involve a new rule, but it has a greater impact on how a ship operates than does the CDS. That is a much higher risk to adversely impacting the game.

And I have already addressed why the CDS isn't used by anyone else. (Except the Orions. The Orions can use it if they want.) It's because it isn't useful to anyone else. Anyone else who already uses ADDs doesn't need it and will stick with the cheaper (and higher capacity) ADDs they have. Anyone on the plasma side of the equation already have Pl-Ds and seem to be pretty happy with them. So, it doesn't spread to other empires (despite the fact it could) because it doesn't offer them anything that would make it worth the effort to adopt the technology.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, July 31, 2022 - 03:33 pm: Edit

I moved the phaser-T discussion over to its own dedicated thread, so as to allow it to be discussed (for good or ill) on its own terms.

-----

Meanwhile, I've been digging a little deeper into the mechanics of the ADD system itself, and what (from an engineering perspective) had been, or in this case would be, required in order to re-purpose it for new warhead types.

According to (E5.31), the hyper-velocity missiles used as anti-drone rounds do not have explosive warheads the way a type-VI drone would. Instead, it releases a cluster of kinetic pellets at the moment just prior to expected impact. Perhaps the random damage scored against a shuttle is reflecting the actual number of pellets that manage to impact the shuttle being targeted?

In any case, these pellets are sub-optimal against tachyon missiles, which are treated by ADDs as shuttles rather than as drones under (OFD1.353). For this reason, the engineers at Aurora III replaced the ADD's hyper-velocity missile with an energy-assisted explosive shell; each shot requires 0.5 points of energy to arm and fire. Crucially, the resulting warhead treats tachyon missiles as drones, rather than as shuttles. It even has the ability to score nominal damage against larger units. In all cases, the amount of damage scored per range (and per target Size Class) is fixed under (OE20.31).

It's not as simple as that, however. In the process of modifying the launcher so as to be able to arm and fire this shell, the weapon lost its ability to fire in a 360-degree arc. Most short-range cannon mounts have 180* firing arcs [(OE20.26)]. Further, it was no longer possible for the weapon to fire standard ADD or type-IV drones; the required modifications were too extensive [(OE20.25)].

On fighters, the weapon cannot store its own ammunition and arming energy. Instead, a dedicated set of pods [(OJ3.37)] are used; each pod carries two shots.

Still, the resulting short-range cannon has proved quite useful for the Auroran Navy, even if it - like the ADD before it - is of no use against enemy plasma-like weapons.

-----

So, what - if anything - is the point of discussing this here?

My view is that, even though the engineering teams behind the SRC and CDS were working independently from one another, the underlying mechanics involved would be such that form would, to a significant degree, follow function in a somewhat parallel manner.

I'd argue that the need to create a warhead capable of damaging plasma would, in essence, require turning a "direct-fire missile launcher" into a "direct-fire energy weapon" here, just as was the case for the SRC. So that means no more 360* fire arc - and likely no ability to use "standard" ADDs or type-IV drones either.

In terms of energy output, I would prefer the CDS cost the same as the SRC - 0.5 energy points per shot. Although, perhaps in this case, the energy would come from the ship's phaser capacitors?

Think of it. Phasers (to include phaser-equivalent weapons elsewhere in known space) are among the few direct-fire weapon types capable of reducing plasma warheads. In which case, perhaps the CDS' arming energy has to be "phaser" energy, as filtered through the ship's phaser capacitors, in order to do the same.

So far as fighters are concerned, I'd follow a similar logic used for SRC pods. As in, a CDS-armed fighter would draw its munitions and arming energy from rail-mounted pods, which would be loaded from the carrier's phaser capacitors beforehand.

In all cases, this would be a "one-way" arming procedure; a ship could not draw energy back out of a CDS munition to arm its phasers.

-----

In short, I'd suggest that the modifications needed to make the CDS an anti-plasma weapon would be extensive enough to require going "all-in", as had happened with the SRC (albeit in a different design direction).

Exactly how such an "all-in" modification would manifest here is another matter; if there is a better means of getting there than what I propose above, well and good. So long as the CDS does not turn out to be better at the things the SRC is designed to be good at, while at the same time being capable of doing something (in this case, target plasma) the SRC itself cannot do.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, July 31, 2022 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Okay, this might be dumb beyond measure, but I was just thinking about a whole new E.0 system for the Feds to have in place of drones.

Imagine a sort of spacial charge that causes an energy burst in a targeted hex with two effects; the first is to cause limited damage to size class 6 and 7 targets and the second effect is to illuminate a cloaked ship.

In terms of damage, I'm picturing the weapon as doing one point to shuttles, 1D6 points to drones, and no damage at all to Plasma torpedoes, mines, or any target larger than a shuttle.

In terms of illuminating cloaked ships, while it does "Show" them, I don't like the idea of a full, automatic "Void the Cloak." What I'm thinking is that if someone wants to get a lock on to a ship that's illuminated, they have to use the chart for retaining a lock-on. IMO, it's a big enough gain over the chart for reacquiring a lock-on, but it's not a magic carpet.

Tentative thoughts are a weak hitting weapon like this that take one point of energy from any source to fire one shot, but are able to fire up to four times per turn (IF armed with four points of energy), but no more than once every four impulses.

HOWEVER, that might make it a little TOO powerful, especially if a ship has them in numbers.

My thoughts on that would be to replace drone racks on existing ships with this weapon system on a one-for-one basis, but the DDG might end up too powerful if it were to be done, to say nothing of the carrier escorts.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, July 31, 2022 - 10:43 pm: Edit

Gary,

I have no interest in making the CDS and an Omega weapon line up. And, since your description of the Omega weapon doesn't do what I was looking for, I still fail to see the incentive.

For techno-babble, let's go back to your (E5.31) reference. What the CDS does is energize those kinetic pellets such that they can interfere with a plasma warhead. The pellets are still there so they can still damage drones and shuttles, but that is because they are still pellets. It is only when affecting plasmas that the energizing comes into play. That's why it causes damage differently to a plasma warhead than is done to drones and shuttles. It isn't doing phaser damage like a phaser does. It simply damages a plasma warhead in a way that has the same effect as phaser damage would. Honestly, I don't see why that is not as acceptable as any other piece of techno-babble in the game.

The CDS was designed to be an ADD that can also affect plasmas. The Omega weapon is not that. So I fail to see why it matters here. In addition, your description of the Omega weapon says that it can damage Omega missiles that the CDS is ineffective against, and it can damage units larger than drones and shuttles, which the CDS cannot do. Each system has strengths and weaknesses that the other does not. So I fail to see why any limitations of the Omega weapon has any relevance to the CDS.

Jeff,

I am not seeing the point of that system for this submission. It trades combat effectiveness for the ability to invalidate a cloak to some undefined degree. So it is no longer effective against drones, it doesn't do anything to plasma, and it flash-cubes a cloaked ship to some degree. Not seeing the win here.

Also, I am going to repeat myself here. The CDS is Fed-only because only the Feds need it. Any weapon made by the Feds that invalidates cloak is going to immediately be given to the Gorns. Which means it isn't Fed-only anymore and it changes Gorn ship development, too.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, August 01, 2022 - 02:09 pm: Edit

I was most unclear on a couple points, Mike, and I do apologize for that.

First point: Range. What I was picturing for this bomb tosser wasn't a close-range weapon (like an ADD); I was imagining something longer ranged that made use of a "To-Hit a Hex" chart like...

Range 1-2, hits on a 1-6
Range 3-4, hits on a 1-5
Range 5-8, hits on a 1-4
Range 9-12, hits on a 1-3
Range 13-18, hits on a 1-2
Range 19-30, hits on a 1

Also, as mentioned, it'll do 1D6 points of damage to a drone in the hex it hits. If there's a swarm of drones, say from a just-blossomed Scatter Pack, it can (reasonably) do 1D6 points of damage to EVERY drone in that swarm. If they're standard Type I (that can take four points of damage), there's a 50% chance of an outright kill against it and even survivors will be more vulnerable to defensive phaser fire.

As far as the Gorn go, you have a VERY valid point. Perhaps a Gorn variant that uses this weapon system would only be able to do so if it's mounted in place of a Plasma-F (or Plasma-D rack)? My twisted mind (or lack thereof ) also thinks that the centi-credit pinching Gorn bureaucracy might consider this to be too expensive for its utility (doing no actual damage to Romulan ships, precious little to fighters, and is absolutely useless in whittlig down plasma torpedoes) and would buy precious few of these systems.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 01, 2022 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Two things:

1) I don't think this weapon applies here. Even after the greater explanation, my points still stand. However, please do feel free to go make this a general suggestion.

2) This is like the Sharkhunter's "bomb thrower" weapon from the Simulators (Module C4), which causes no direct damage and has far less range. If you want your weapon to exist outside the Simulators, you will need to very carefully justify why.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, August 01, 2022 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Okay, I did break out my copy of Module C4 and Mike, you are correct.

The closest thing I have to a defense (or for that matter, a Socratic Apology) is that my post came from the heart (if very little mind) of a fellow fan who wanted to help with an idea.

At this time, I agree that it wasn't a very good idea... Scratch that, let's take out the "Very" and say simply that it was a full blown BAD idea...

... And we can throw it on the bonfire of bad ideas* I've had over the years.


(* There are too many to count)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, August 01, 2022 - 08:17 pm: Edit

Rather then trying to invent a new "anti-cloak" weapon for the Feds and then trying to explain why the Gorns can't also have it, one could perhaps look at things from the opposite direction.

According to (FP14.11), it is technically possible to deploy a weapon which can only fire as a direct-fire plasma carronade: this would be designated as a "PLC" on the SSD of a ship so armed.

Perhaps, in a "no-drone Fed" timeline, the Gorns were minded to construct PLC mounts for export to the Federation, in lieu of the "full" plasma-F launchers they provided historically?

That might allow for modified versions of the DDL, BCF, and others of their kind to exist here, albeit with a greater onus on keeping them deployed to the Romulan front.

On a side note: if following the rules outlined in (FP14.15), it would appear that one can install PLCs on Federation INTs and PFs, if one so wished. However, fighter-armed PLCs appear to be off the table.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 01, 2022 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Honestly, I am not opposed to that in addition to the CDS. I know there carronade fanboys in FC, at least. I don't think they would bother with the gunboats, but the occasional Romulan border variant sounds OK to me.

But the rest of the submission needs to work first.