Archive through August 26, 2022
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
Feds without drones:
Archive through August 26, 2022
I posted the suggestion below in the Stellar Shadows section for “feds without seeking weapons” and Mike West suggested I post it here, which makes sense to me. 😊
The base idea is that drones, in my opinion, are may the most versatile and customisable weapon in the game and are very versatile and effective tool.
So to replace them, I ran through the issues,
1) No seeking weapons, so no variation of a drone or a plasma
a.and a direct fire drone is really just a photon. A warhead that doesn’t diminish in strength with distance and a set probability to hit.
b. And photons don’t do well as drone or plasma defence
2) Can’t replace drone with weapons from other races, as that is just tech sloshing
3) Just using phasers is pretty bland, should replace the drones with something that makes them play differently or else why do it. 😊
4) The feds historically face both the drone/disrupter races and the plasma races and the Tholians, so they need something like drones that can be utilized in many different ways.
5) It needs to be something that is uniquely Federation
So following this thought process led me to the proposal below.
Mike’s comment was that it does to much for one weapon, but then drones also do a lot. They are offensive, defensive either as counter drone, or drawing off weapons fire. They can create terrain, they can be customized to add subterfuge, variation in warhead strength, in size, duration (drone bombardment) other special features.
Because of the Federation’s unique position and being required to be able to deal with drone/disrupter races, Plasma races and the Tholians. They developed a unique system based on their unique photon torpedoes and other standard technologies.
In an attempt to provide both the defensive capabilities of an ADD/drone system and the versatility to meet the federations diverse threats. The Federation created a small focused charge of contained phaser energy designed to destroy smaller targets. This charge was armed in canisters allowing for a gatling firing system, which fired the charge as a direct fire energy weapon. The launcher used a modified photon targeting system to enhance its accuracy on small targets, however it drastically reduced the range of engagement of a photon torpedo. Though it has a longer range than an ADD, it also does not auto-kill a large or armored drone. It is also a direct fire weapon and is affected by all effects that impact phasers.
The firing arc is 360 to allow it to engage approaching drones from all directions.
Replace the ADD’s and ship drone racks with a direct fire Explosive Phaser mini-torpedo (EPMT). Set in a gatling launcher that holds four rounds which can fire one round per impulse. The weapon is an out growth of the photon torpedo, by a NSM manufacture combining a miniaturized photon torpedo launcher adapted with an explosive phaser warhead. The warhead detonates either on close approach to the target with a tightly focused discharge or in proximity using a less focused detonation. Thereby not requiring a direct hit on a small target, and eliminating some targeting issues with small units. However, as a side benefit the company designing the units also manufactured NSM’s/ TB’s and noticed the energy dispersal of the detonated could be adjusted to trigger the sensors of active NSM within the hex, thus a EPMT has a 2/6 chance of causing an NSM/TB detonation.
The device has multiple launch modes in stand mode the war head will do 10 points of damage to a size class 7 unit, 8 points of damage to a size class 6 unit, 4 points of damage to a size class 5 unit, and 2 points of damage to larger units. Like photons torpedoes or drones the warhead does not diminish with distance. The warhead does damage to Tholian Web in proximity or overload mode, in the same manner a NSM detonation will, at size class 7 damage yield, and the weapon is armed with phaser energy so it will damage a Plasma/ Quantum Wave torpedo again in proximity or overload mode. Allowing it to be effective against all the Federation’s opponents.
In proximity mode it will do half damage but will still also set off NSM’s with a 2/6 chance on every detonation just like the standard mode. In this mode it will also cause damage to Plasma and Quantum wave Torpedoes, and Tholian Webs. Overload mode can also damage Plasma and Quantum wave Torpedoes, and Tholian Webs.
On ballistic mode it is fired at a hex in an attempt to set off a mine in the hex or to damage a web in the hex. The normal to hit probability is rolled to achieve a successful detonation. It will no damage to any other unit in the hex, as it is not targeted on anything but the specific location in space.
The device needs 0.5 pts of power per canister to arm from the phaser capacitor grid of the ship. Once armed they can be held for free for 3 turns, then need to be armed again. In the start of a scenario, all four canisters are loaded and the ship has 1 or 2 standard reloads matching the timeline of drone/Add reloads, extra canisters may be purchased with commanders’ options. Reloading requires removal of the spent canister and replacing with new devices, and then arming from the phaser capacitor grid. The phaser capacitor grid was not enhanced for the EPMT system, as it was considered the power draw would not be continuous and minimal, and it also reduced the space required for the launcher by removing the associated capacitor system. Note that if all phasers are destroyed with the associated phaser capacitors, the EPMT cannot be armed.
To Hit Chart (failure to hit means not a miss but a failed detonation, so no mine effects)
Range 0 1 2 3 4-5 6-8
Standard - 1-3 1-4 1-4 1-2 1
Proximity - - 1 1 1-3 1-3
Overload 1-4 1-3 1
Overload warhead: the overload feature does 50% more damage thus 15 points of damage for size class 7, 12 points of damage to size class 6, 6 points of damage to size class 5 and 3 points of damage to larger units. The overload charge must be applied the impulse of firing, it cannot be held, if not fired it is ejected automatically from the launcher and detonates outside the ship causing both feedback damage and any mine effects. If it detonates in the hex of the firing unit, either by hitting a target or being auto-ejected, the firing unit takes half the overloaded warhead as feedback damage as if it were a size class 5 unit.
The canisters must be fired from a launcher, they cannot be loaded onto a shuttle to be used as a scatter pack. A Federation MRS would have an EPMT system without reloads replacing ADD and or drone rack.
Fighters would need to be modified balance the payload replacing drones with EPMT canisters. The fighter EPMT would have to be armed before launch and would only last 3 turns before needing to return to the carrier to be re-armed. They could recharge a cannister however that would drain the power of the onboard phasers for that turn.
The game concepts behind this suggestion:
1) Without drones the Federation
a. does not have the capability to create drone terrain
b. nor do they have a cost-effective method of countering drones
2) They will most likely need to move faster to avoid enemy drones/torpedoes
a. As their turn mode is not optimal, this device allows them a method to counter other terrain effects, such as webs and NSM/TB’s if required.
3) It provides a weapon based on their original technical expertise
4) The federation should play relatively differently than the standard designs. (Though as noted the fighter weapon buildouts will need to be reviewed)
Modifications to reduce effectiveness
1) Modify damage output against size class or specific targets.
2) Perhaps have the damage output degrade over the three turns of free holding unless recharged 0.25 points of phaser power each cannister per turn. Though this adds a LOT of bookkeeping.
3) Modify the number of canisters in the gatling launcher, or the rate of fire.
4) Reduce the firing arc to 90 degrees to match standard photon launcher arcs.
Suicide assault shuttles are seeking weapons.
They have been part of the game virtually from the beginning in the pocket edition.
I strenuously oppose retconning them out of existance.
If you insist on removing them from the Federation so as to match your proposal, please remember that there are the monster scenario(s) that specify that ONLY a suicide assault shuttle can kill the monster as one of the possible solutions for the scenario.
Hi Jeff;
From the original discussion , my understanding was that this suggestion was specialized to seeking weapons, drones, plasma torpedoes or other similar items. Shuttles were not mentioned that I recall. In any case that was not what I was suggesting here, more of a non-drone or plasma federation.
Hard to separate the SAS (Suicide Assault Shuttles) from seeking weapons since it functionally uses the seeking weapons rules, AND requires the use of a Seeking Weapons Control Channel.
IIRC, ships without normal seeking weapons (Drones or Plasma Torpedoes) still usually have the ability to control a number of seeking weapons (Suicide Shuttles) equal to half their sensor rating.
In this case, I think that would enable the drone-free Federation to still make use of these Suicide Shuttles?
Just for the record, my proposal (the one being referred to) doesn't say anything about admin shuttles because they don't change. Which means, yes, they can use suicide shuttles.
In other words, Mr. Anderson is absolutely correct.
But, again, that's my proposal. This thread can propose and do whatever is desired here.
I have a problem with a direct fire 360 type weapon. Yes Drones an ADD have them because well they are rockets, but Plasma Racks are restricted to 180 degree arcs.
Why would your mini photons be 360 and not their bigger mean brother?
Forgive me the pedantry, but please clarify…. ADMIN shuttles != Assault Shuttles?
I thought that Assault Shuttles were The proto-fighters the Kzinti had in early Designer’s Edition before Module J was written.
Jeff they are talking about Federation Admin/MRS/Advanced Shuttles could still be used as Seeking Suicide Shuttles. Someone is getting Suicide Assault Frieghter used in Base attacks and applying that naming convention to the Suicide Shuttles.
The gest is that the Feds can do everything with a Shuttle here that they could now except make a Scatter Pack. They still can use Suicide Shuttles and Wild Weasles.
Which reminds me the Drones on Multi Role Shuttles will need to be addressed as well.
Thank you, that’s the nuance I was missing.
As I understand the notion to de-drone the feds…. And that means…. Heck, I suspect it would mean the Feds would probably never produce fighters or carriers of any type. While carriers could carry A-10’s the development of such a craft would be an outgrowth of previous designs that, without drones to justify the expense of the advanced shuttle research in the first place, would not have been produced. PFs would probably fill that role, but they would come late to the party and when they arrived would probably come with a mech tractor refit for the entire fleet to carry one (frigates), two (destroyers and cruisers), or three (battle cruisers or larger).
As for the MRS….. Without drones a Fed MRS looses J8.33 and arguably J8.34. The replacement anti-drone systems proposed elsewhere replacing the ADDx6 would not compensate for this. Looking at the chart, swapping out for the Lyran/LDR design might end up more…. Equitable.
Odd notion: why not give the Feds really big ‘drones’ in lieu of taking everything away. Drones have a tactical use, even if they never land. They require attention and can reduce a commander’s options for maneuvering. Suicide shuttles are poor replacements. For the most part, they are usually relegated to ambush style attacks or late game destructive uses when the target’s defenses have been stripped. Specifically I was thinking something like cruise missiles that are built on a shuttle frame with a dedicated explosive payload, say equal to an NSM. Speed would be on par with other shuttles, but unlike drones would not have an endurance concern. Better still if they would be indistinguishable from Suicide or Pseudo Suicide shuttles. They would be bought as commanders options in place of Admin shuttles…. But I digress.
All that said, I’m not sure this could be done without rebalancing every federation unit that would survive the cull. Most ships that loose drones would need something for the lost hit points if nothing else. Just replacing the boxes with basic hull would still not address the loss of offense capability.
I think even with out drones the Feds would still produce fighters. Either rechargeable Phaser Pods are some new micro photon system would be deployed.
If you give the Feds really big Drones wouldn't they still develope ADD Systems or Type VIs.
It would need to be an all or none type deal. And to be honest I don't see them abandonning Drones but who knows. Let's see where this rabbit hole goes.
If you revist the drones on MRS issue, then you open the can labled “Minesweepers”
Just for those who may not be aware, the Federation Minesweeper (the Original one that used the old style light Cruiser hull.) use a drone A rack.
I forget the YIS date, but for some reason I think it used slow drones.
Do note that in my submission actually does cover all of these issues. In detail.
The issue on what to do with fighters is a real one. However, no matter the answer, the Federation will have fighters if their opponents have fighters. What they look like is a good question. But they will have them.
Handling the MRS is easy. The Lyrans and Tholians do not have drones, but do have MRSs. Just model a revised Fed version on those. It's not hard.
The MS has nothing to do with MRS, but is an issue if the Federation doesn't have drones. It has a very early YIS date, so it must be addressed. Don't forget the GSC, which also has a very early YIS date and also includes a drone rack. This isn't hard to deal with, but it does need to be explicitly addressed.
Could just consider the MS and GSC “Grand father clause” under the rules.
Old technology that is still in service but not in actual production in the ship yards.
It would also allow a little leeway for auxiliary ships (drone armed freighter for example).
I think the simplest approach is to replace each drone rack with an RX phaser-I. That way the power demand balances the switch and you cannot use it for a centerline attack.
And is definitely useful against drones, plasma, and fighters!
One disadvantage to the RX P1 is that on a critical turn you won't have the multiple target anti-drone/fighter capabilities of a G rack in ADD mode. The P1 will just get you one shot per turn (in P3 or P1 mode).
The P1 of course can fire forever so long as power is available, supplements shipwide phaser capacitor, and also has anti-plasma capability as well as generic anti-ship capability with some range (particularly along the FA/RX boundary).
For my money, if I was going against Klingons somewhat later in the GW I'd take a G rack in ADD mode. Versus Romulans I'd take the RX P1.
--Mike
And, because of the weapons table, there is a potential bonus in damage generated by using a phaser 1. (Note, at zero range, there is a chance (not a great chance, granted,) of inflicting up to 9 points of damage. Not useful if the ship is the target, but possible if the plasma/drone is passing thru the hex on its path to the real target.
Compare with a phaser 3, which maxes out at 4 point of damage.
Petrick has spent Years pointing out that two phaser 3 mounts cost the same energy as a comparable phaser 2 or phaser 1, and the pair of phaser 3s generate a higher average damage yield than a single phaser 1.
As SVC pointed out, not useful for a centerline attack, but I would wager 25 quatloos that any number of players will use the phaser 1 somehow, even if it is just hitting an enemy ships shield on the way out of the hex.
Players cant help themselves. No point in not expending the phaser capacity energy, after all, it takes two turns to reload the photons anyway!
RX allows the hex-row directly down the 2 or 6 shield facing to be hit by both the RX phasers and the FA photons.
Standard approach (at least for me) for a photon shot at 2, 4, or 8 you are trying (in an ideal world where your opponent cooperates) to get your shot on one of those hex-rows anyway so you can turn off and run after the shot.
If you wanted to prevent this Ph-1 rear half can't do that and you'd need to take the shot after turning off and quite possibly on a different shield (in which case it's likely that you'd rather hit the incoming seeking weapons).
Depending upon the Fed ship in question, the FA/RX boundary is indeed useful since a number of the Fed ships have P1 on either side of the saucer that can only fire RH or RF+R (or corresponding on the left).
Agreed that having the new hypothetical rear phaser be RH rather than RX would address that offensive use. The Fed CA already gets 2xP1 RH in the CAR refit, so why not a 3rd?
--Mike
I have to admit I would make it RH, not RX. And, for its purpose, I might prefer the 2xPh-3. But then, that gets into other problems.
If I had the option of flying a Fed CAR with a third Ph-1 RH, I'd probably become one of those obnoxious pests who wants to upgun the ship even more.
"No REAL Federation ship has more Phaser-1s to the rear than to the front! Only the CONJECTURAL BB has that!!"
(... And whine about it ad nausea* like a petulant toddler... )
(* NOT a typeo )
I am good with RH.
So, going with the phaser idea, that means the following would most likely happen:
- Ships that have a drone rack prior to refits replace it with a Ph-1 RH. (E.g. MS, GSC, NCL.)
- Ships with one or two drone racks as part of the base hull replace them one-for-one with Ph-1 RH.
- Any design that is drone-primary is discarded.
- Any design with a plasma is discarded.
- The core of the refits is 2xPh-3 360 (or 2xPh-3 LS/RS) and 1xPh-1 RH. Ships that only get the Ph-3s still only get the Ph-3s (e.g. NCL). Ships that only get the drone rack, only get the RH Ph-1 (e.g. FFG). If the refit includes anything else (e.g. APR/AWR) that remains unchanged.
- The "carrier refit" would likely replace the 2xDRN with 2xPh-1 L+RA/RA+R (in addition to whatever else the refit may include).
- The primary BC is the BCP. Its remaining drones become, I guess, 2xPh-1 L+RA/RA+R (like the carrier refit phasers). That ship becomes a brutal phaser boat.
What this means for very big ships and escorts would have to be done on a case-by-case basis. Basically, all of the drones would be replaced with Ph-1s with various arcs. Some would have terrifyingly large numbers of phasers.
For fighters, I'd use the same designs from my proposal, except that the CDS are just 4 or 6 space ADD racks (or maybe 6 or 12 space ADD racks!) and the CDSS are just normal RALADs. Sucks against plasma fighters, but most of the plasma fighters suck anyway.
If they get gunboats, they'd be awesome! 3xPh-1, 2xPhot, 1xPh-3. Very sweet!