For Fed carrier escorts, why not replace most of the G-racks with P1, and maybe 1 with an additional gatling phaser?

That might help address the reduced firing rate of P1 vs G-rack.

--Mike

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, August 28, 2022 - 11:53 am: Edit

A thought...

I'll try to do it with math figures?

(Uh-oh!)

(Fed ship with drone vs. Klingon/Lyran) vs. (Fed ship with Ph-1 in place of drone vs. Klingon/Lyran)

Fed with drone would primarily use drone rack in anti-drone mode against Klingon drones. Now, must instead use Ph-1 in that role; an exchange that works as a balance. Meanwhile, Fed ship with Ph-1 in place of drone also loses use of ECM drone.

On the other border...

(Fed ship with drone vs. Romulan) vs. (Fed ship with Ph-1 in place of drone vs. Romulan)

Fed ship has extra Ph-1 for plasma defense BUT Romulan ship has no need to utilize their own Phasers for defense against Federation drones (Scatter pack, anyone?) and can use otherwise assigned phasers as part of their offense.

And again, Federation loses ECM drone protection as well.

For these reasons, I see the exchange as not out of balance.

My 0.02 Quatloos worth, at any rate...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, August 28, 2022 - 12:42 pm: Edit

Dal,

In my mind, a DB ship fulfills a different role from a mauler. So, that means that the no-drone Feds replace a DB ship with ... a ship. I dunno, maybe a fast raider?

Regardless, the point of a "no-drone" Federation is not to replicate how they work with drones. It is to take away the drones (and plasma) in a reasonable way, then see what they do as a result. Will they play differently? Sure! But, again, that is the whole point! If they play the same, then nothing is gained and the whole exercise is worthless. They have to play differently to make the experience worth the effort of doing.

So, yes, a "no-drone" Federation will not have DB ships. They will not have plasma. They will not have ECM drones. They may not even have secondary weapons. Their fighters will be drastically different. And that is all good, because figuring out how these new circumstances work is the whole point of the exercise.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, August 28, 2022 - 03:35 pm: Edit

Instead of adding Photon Torpedos, perhaps an increased level of overloaded photons could be added, to replace the drone G racks on ships that had two or more drone Gs.

The published progression is 2 points warp energy for 2 turns yields a 8 point warhead photon.

Overloaded Photons progression is 2+6 points warp energy for 2 turns yields a 16 point warhead photon.

Double overloaded Photon at 2+10 points warp energy for 2 turn yields a 24 point warhead photon.

Advantage is no additional ssd boxes to be crammed into an already crowded SSD form.

And for those variants that do add additional ssd boxes for drone racks, those boxes could be converted in to hull, or cargo or any non weapon or power boxes.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, August 28, 2022 - 03:53 pm: Edit

>> perhaps an increased level of overloaded photons could be added

The double secret photons!

--Mike

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, August 28, 2022 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Jeff,

No one is changing how photons work.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 28, 2022 - 05:04 pm: Edit

I would think that replacing drone racks (generally) with photon torpedoes is a nope.

I think the solution is to replace the first Drn-G with P-3, 1xLS 1xRS and any racks beyond that get replaced with RH PH-1s. That would keep firepower from getting too nasty and provide point defense for most ships which is sort of the point of Fed G-racks in any case.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 29, 2022 - 09:29 am: Edit

To be clear, the only time I could see any drones being replaced with photons would be possibly on the DNH and BB, and then only two and probably pointing backwards. It's just a thought, and it is just as likely the excess drones would be outright deleted rather than replaced with anything at all.

As for replacing the drone racks, I would just double-down on the "RH Ph-1" thing and replace the first two drones with one Ph-1 RH each, straight up. The one exception for the "RH" arc would be the "carrier drone refit", which would convert the two drones to Ph-1 L+RA and Ph-1 RA+R (based on their location on the SSD). There might be other exceptions, but they'd be very rare, and would be rear arcs only.

Then, for any ship with more than two drones, it'd have to be individually evaluated. Each one could result in wildly different approaches. For example, the GSC+ could end up with three phasers with different arcs: the original drone with RH, and the refit two with L+RA/RA+R. Alternatively, the original drone could be replaced with an extra shuttle, and only the refit drones replaced with phasers. Similarly, the DNG could possibly replace two of its drones with Ph-1 RH, but the other two could be added to the existing Ph-1 360. Again, each of these ships would have to be evaluated individually, one at a time, to come up with specific solutions for them.

For escorts, just replace every single drone with a Ph-1. Straight up. I don't see the Ph-G production situation being any different with these Feds, so they can't make any more Ph-G than they already do. So, no drones can be replaced by Ph-G. That means just using Ph-1s. However, these are not restricted to rear arcs, but instead use whatever arcs make sense for their location on the each ship's hull.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Monday, August 29, 2022 - 11:38 am: Edit

Agreed, the history clearly articulates the scarcity of ship mounted PG. And, in this alternative reality I hypothesize that Fed carrier escorts fighting even somewhat later war Klingons are potentially going to be really hobbled by the elimination of what amounts to 3 or 4 ADDs. On a critical turn, a 3 or 4 G-rack escort could pump 24-32 ADD rounds out. That shoots down quite a bit of stuff. And replacing 24-32 max shots (on a critical turn, managing coverage and reloads with other escorts) with 3-4 P1 shots seems like a really big step down. Hence the thought of imagining this alternative phaser-centric Federation where PG were more prevalent on escorts.

Of course, playtesting would shake this all out. Maybe since the escorts don't have drone racks to reload, they can stay in the fight longer (and together) and use their combined continuous phasers more effectively? So maybe the escorts then get better at steady state longer term drone killing, and somewhat sacrifice their ability to surge and kill a lot of drones in one turn?

--Mike

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Monday, August 29, 2022 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Mike_Erickson: I think that's one of the primary reasons that Mike West includes an anti-drone system in the original proposal.

Your point about escorts loosing the potential for a lot of anti-drone/anti-fighter fire has been brought up. It would be rendered moot (along with my congruent opinions) if the CDS replaces most of the G-racks on escorts.

---

Quote:

Close-in Defense System
- Has 8 space rack with double reloads. Uses rules the ADD rack rules. Y175 refit adds third reload.
- CDS rack can use ADD rounds or CDS rounds. Cannot use type-VI drones.
- Unenergized CDS rounds operate in all ways as ADD rounds. ADD rounds have no rule changes.
- Invented in Y140 operating as an eight-round ADD rack.
- Starting in Y160 (or so) CDS system adds refit that allows CDS rounds to be energized. ADD rounds cannot be energized.
- Energized CDS rounds require 1/4 power per shot and let it target plasma. If it hits, does 4 points of phaser damage (2 points of warhead reduction).
- Unenergized version invented in Y140. Full version in Y160 (or so).
This is a new weapon (really an improved version of an existing weapon) that the Feds use in place of their drone racks. The energized shots allow the Federation to damage plasma warheads, which frees up some of their phaser firepower to compensate for the Romulan phaser firepower freed up by the lack of Federation drones. Against drone using empires, it is basically just a type-G drone rack loaded with ADD rounds.

---

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, August 29, 2022 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Thinking about some of the carrier escorts that the Federation used on the Romulan border...

Think about how carriers on the Klingon (and Kzinti) borders made use of DE and DEA where those on the Romulan border frequently had the "Romulan Border Specific" DER and DAR.

Same is true with escorting Frigates and what-not.

Might it be possible for the Federation to make use of ships with ADDs for the Klingon (and Kzinti) border(s) while for those assigned to the Romulan (and possibly Gorn and/or Tholian) border(s) to have Ph-1s instead?

As a "Fig Leaf," please remember that the Hydrans made use of Fusion/Fighter ships far more commonly than Hellbore/APR ships on the Klingon border while the reverse was true on the Lyran one, so it's not entirely without precedent in the SFU to have different ship configurations on different borders.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 29, 2022 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Note that there is no true dual-ammo situation for the CDS rack. Once the energize-able ammo appears, that's all the Feds use. Whether to charge it or not depends on the user's decision at EA/firing. The point about being able to use standard ADD rounds in a CDS is purely for flexibility in odd situations. In a normal situation, all ammo is automatically CDS ammo. Easy-peasy.

Also, I do not see any situation where the warships use phasers in place of drones, but the escorts use CDS. That would be a pointless addition of a new rule for very little to no gain. If you want to use CDS, use CDS like I outline in the other thread. If you just want to use phasers, then just use phasers with no new weapons systems.

That said, using standard ADDs on escorts is definitely an option. It is a standard rule that is unchanged and gives more flexibility to the escorts. Yes, they are useless against plasma on the Romulan border, but they are useful against the fighters themselves. And, since Pl-D have such short range, they should get into range of the escorts. In this situation, I would suggest using ADD-6 before Y175 and ADD-12 after. In this case, I would expect all the same escorts to be available, except that all "escort drone racks" are replaced with ADD-6/12s and refit/base hull drones are replaced with the RH Ph-1s. (So, e.g., the DW would have three ADD racks and the NEC would have four ADD racks, and both would have a Ph-1 RH in place of the base hull's drone rack.)

And ... if you just use normal ADD racks with escorts, it justifies using normal ADDs/RALADs with the superiority fighters. Just sayin' ...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, September 03, 2022 - 03:40 pm: Edit

OK, I think I figured out how to make at least a base level that would work. The base requirement and assumption below is that there can be no new rules. Obviously, virtually every ship changes, but there are no new rules to support this. All required rules already exists in the base game.

Before starting, do note that I still prefer the CDS proposal. That said, if it is untenable, so be it. But I still much prefer it for the many reasons I have outlined in that other discussion. On to the presentation:
------------------------------------------
Phaser Federation

This postulates that the Federation chose to never deploy drones or plasmas. (Outside the early Early Years Andorian ships.) This means they need to replace their intrinsic and refit drones with something. That something is (generally) a rear-facing Ph-1.

Ships that have drones as their primary weapons (e.g. FFD, DWD, NCD, CAD), and any ships that include plasma (FFL, DDL, NAL, BCF, DNF), are removed entirely. (Escorts treated separately below.)

Ships with one non-refit drone rack (e.g. GSC, NCL, FFG, DW, etc.) replace the drone rack with a Ph-1 RH.

Ships with two non-refit drone racks (e.g. CS) replace each with a Ph-1 RH (total of two Ph-1s). EXCEPTIONS: see below for the BC. Replace the MS drones with 1xPh-1 LS, 1xPh-1 RS.

Refits that include a single drone rack replace the drone rack with a Ph-1 RH. All other elements of the refit are unchanged, including power, shields, and Ph-3s.

The "carrier refit" replaces the two drone racks with 2xPh-1 L+RA/RA+R (one of each). All other elements of the refit are unchanged.

There are very, very few ships with more than two non-refit drone racks. (At least that weren't already eliminated by this point.) These ships replace their drone racks with a mixture of Ph-1s (of various arcs) and AWR. Here they are:
- BC: use the BCP as the base version. The only versions used are the BCP and BCJ. Replace the drones with 1xPh-1 L+RA, 1xPh-1 RA+R (like the carrier refit).
- DNG: replace the four drone racks with 2xPh-1 RH, 2xAWR.
- DNH: replace the six drone racks with 2xPh-1 RH, 2xPh-1 360, 2xAWR.
- DNL: replace the three drone racks with 2xPh-1 RH, 1xAWR.
- DNM: replace the five drone racks with 2xPh-1 RH, 1xAWR, 1xPh-LS, 1xPh-RS.
- BB: replace the nine drone racks with 6xPh-1 360, 3xAWR.
- BB variants: replace the three drone racks with 3xPh-1 360.
An others that were missed would follow the above guidelines.

Escorts simply replace their drone racks one-for-one with ADD racks. These are ADD-6 racks prior to Y175. The Y175 refit improves all of them to ADD-12s. These are unmodified, standard ADD racks. While they are of less utility on the Romulan border, they are still effective against fighters and shuttles. Presumably the mix of escort types changes to favor designs with more phasers and/or photons. There may be a need to add an FFER and DWAR, for example, to get a good mix of weapon arrangements. Regardless of exact arrangements, escorts use a mix of photons, Ph-1s, Ph-Gs, and ADD racks.

Fighters use a 50/50 split approach between attack and superiority fighters. Attack fighters use a photon with a single charge. Superiority fighters use an ADD rack. The primary fighters are:
- F-8 (replace drones with ADD-6) and A-8 (replace drones with a single photon). The A-8 may get a Ph-2 instead of a photon.
- F-18 (replace drones with ADD-6) and A-18 (replace drones with a single photon).
- F-18B/A-18B (as F-18/A-18, just faster).
The super-fighters are:
- F-15 (replace drones with an ADD-12) and A-15 (replace drones with a photon with two charges).
- F-14 (replace drones with ADD-12) and A-10 (replace drones with ADD-6 and extra photon charge). There is no A-14, as the A-10 takes that role.
The primary heavy figher would be the A-20 (replace drones and ADD-6 with ADD-12 and extra photon charges). Bombers aren't worth the effort unless this gets real.
In all cases, adjust the size of the ADD rack as necessary, and add any odd RALADs as needed to balance things out. Note that all fighter photons are standard photons, are limited to range 12, and use rules (J4.45) and (J4.85) unchanged.

The Steves get to decide whether gunboats are used or not. If used, the base design is the Thunderbolt B with the single drone replaced by an FH or FA (not RH) Ph-1. The main variants are a phaser version where one photon is replaced with a second FH/FA Ph-1 and an escort version, where the FH/FA Ph-1 and photons are replaced with ADD-6s (this is the standard Thunderbolt-E).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, September 03, 2022 - 03:59 pm: Edit

What about the MRS , YIS 150 I think,

It carries drones, and has a drone stockpile added to the ship when purchased with Commanders Options points.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, September 03, 2022 - 05:02 pm: Edit

I think you can't have more photon fighters than on existing carriers. I think those fighters would have to be armed with a PH-2, rather than a photon torpedo.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, September 03, 2022 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Jeff, the Lyrans and Tholians have MRS shuttles. It isn't going to be hard to do and it isn't that important. If this is the path forward, it'll get done. Obviously it wouldn't have drones. Worst case, just use the Lyran MRS as a model to work from.

(No, I am not saying the Federation would use the Lyran MRS as a basis. I am saying that from a meta-game perspective, the Lyran MRS is probably a good starting point.)

Richard, I am assuming that the relevant carriers would be modified to have adequate numbers of photon reload racks. If we are swapping out drone racks everywhere, I fail to see why swapping out the types of ready racks would be an issue. Do note that the escorts would not, however, as those rules would not change. Also note that carriers are not suddenly gaining banks of new AWRs, so actually using those new ready racks could be an issue. The photons are needed, or the fighters are worthless outside range three. (Not that they are great or anything even with photons, but they are needed.)

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, September 03, 2022 - 06:38 pm: Edit

I don't think it's possible to replace drone rails with photon torpedoes. The Feds never did this historically, and attempts to propose single space fighters with photon torpedoes (other than the A10) have always been, ah, shot down by the powers that be.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, September 03, 2022 - 07:15 pm: Edit

Richard,

The fighters I am describing are completely different fighters. I am describing the weapon changes in a simple manner, but it is purely from a meta-game perspective. The A-18 is not just an F-18 with a photon spread out on the drone rails. The A-18 is a completely different fighter that has the same game statistics as the F-18, but with a different weapons load. Heck, even the F-18 listed here is a completely different fighter, but has similar game states. The difference is that this F-18 uses an ADD rack instead of drone rails. The substitution is pure in meta-game terms, not in-game terms.

I didn't explain this because I figured it was inherently obvious. If these Feds never had drones, then they would never have had fighters that used drones. Therefore, there are no in-game fighters to convert. These F-18s would be built around their ADD rack (and the A-18s around their photon launcher.) I only use the F-18 name to show the equivalency and because the forces that caused the mainline Feds to name them F-18 probably exists in this alternative history.

And do note that these are just the base parameters. The A-18 may only have a single phaser instead of two. The A-18B might be speed 14 instead of speed 15. Other tweaks could be needed. That's fine. The base description is just to outline what the idea is. If the idea is good, specifics will be determined.

But, these Feds will need fighters that don't use drones, which means at least a good portion of them will be using photons. I chose a 50/50 ratio. If it is determined to use a different ratio, so be it. Also note that SVC has expressed acceptance of widely used photon fighters in my submission using the CDS, so I don't see why that would change here. In that other submission, I modified the photons to make them easier on the fighters and easier on the carriers, but this one seems to require no new rules. So that means using the mainline fighter photons, but more widely.

In summary, I don't see how to have relevant fighters without giving at least half of them photons.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Saturday, September 03, 2022 - 07:19 pm: Edit

>> F-14 (replace drones with ADD-12)

This seems like it will really cut back on the anti-ship potential of the F-14?

--Mike

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, September 03, 2022 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Re-using the F-18 designation is an inherently bad idea.

You are confusing the issue.

Players will not know which version of fighter is being talked about in any context because you failed to differentiate between drone armed F-18 types and non drone armed F-18.

That said, I can not fault your logic, no doubt it would happen along the lines that you indicate, and if all you are doing is writing fiction, it might be okay.

But you are not writing a fiction piece for captains log article.

I urge you to choose a unique name that is different from the published Federation Fighter types. That way, players (not to mention the Games overworked designer) will recognize instantly that you are referring to a droneless variant.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, September 03, 2022 - 07:48 pm: Edit

It doesn't matter how you justify it. I don't think replacing half the Federation's single space fighters with photon torpedo bearing single space fighters is going to, ahem, fly.

New photon Fed fighters have always been rejected in the past and I suspect will be rejected here as well.

YMMV.

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Saturday, September 03, 2022 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Just looking at it if every Federation Fighter carried an ADD Rack what Fighter Force could compete with it? This might be too good.

Using Phaser Pods is a lot easier and keeps the same drone mechanic if they are one shot weapons destroying/discarding the frame/casing after firing. Then fly back get a fresh set of pods and head back out. Be they one shot Phaser-2s or two shot Phaser-3 or a light Phaser-3 pod. No fuss renaming every Federation Fighter Type. Maybe as a late war Refits allow F14/F15/F16 to carry 2 Phaser-1 Pods

New Photon Attack fighters how is that going to work? Does a CVS now carry all or 6 of each. Even 6 of each is a 12 point energy drain per turn. That's why A10 would land and switch to Gatling Pods.

Or are you changing the way fighter photons work from freezers to some kind of Plasma D/K?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, September 03, 2022 - 09:54 pm: Edit

Jeff,

See the next message.

Richard,

Steve said it was OK for the CDS proposal, so I am going to assume it works here until told it doesn't. Until then, the objection is noted.

Dal,

Half the Fed fighters would use ADD racks. Again, what I outlined is just the starting point. If the ammo count is too much, it can go down. If the rack is too much, then they can be replaced with an assorted number of RALADs. But I thought all RALADs was too weak. That's why I started with actual racks.

I don't see why they should use a drone mechanic at all, since they don't use drones. And absolutely no other fighter is required to use disposable pods if their primary weapon is phasers. If the fighters need to use phasers, then they should just use phasers. Slap them on and let 'em rip. Not the direction I want to see, but that is an option. No fighter ever carries a Ph-1, so that isn't an option.

I stated the fighters would be 50/50. So your CVS would have 6 photon fighters and 6 ADD fighters. A-10s are too special use and too slow to just make them the only photon fighter. So they aren't. Also, there are no Gatling pods in Captain's Edition.

I am not changing how photon fighters work in any way. Photon fighter ready racks have photon freezers built in and the carriers can charge them for use in reloading returning fighters. This is using (J4.85) unchanged. Yes, that is hard on carriers. I said that. But, them's the breaks for using photon fighters instead of zero power drones.

As a general point on these fighters, assuming the limitation of no new rules and no drones, the weapons fighters can use are phasers, photons, and ADDs. And that's it. No drones. No light photons. No half-photons. No new phaser system. No brand new weapon. No new rules. No drones.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, September 03, 2022 - 10:33 pm: Edit

For new fighter designations, use this:
F-1: use damage, speed, and phasers of an F-8; has an ADD-6.
A-1: use damage, speed, and phasers of an F-8; has a photon (or Ph-2).
F-2: use damage, speed, and phasers of an F-18; has an ADD-6.
A-2: use damage, speed, and phasers of an F-18; has a photon.
F-2B / A-2B: faster versions of the F-2 and A-2.
F-6: use damage, speed, and phasers of an F-20; has two RALADs.
A-6: there is no A-6. The frame cannot handle a photon or even a Ph-2.
F-11: use damage, speed, and phasers of an F-15; has an ADD-6 and maybe a couple RALADs, too.
A-11: use damage, speed, and phasers of an F-15; has a photon and maybe a pair of RALADs.
F-13: basically the same as the F-6, but give it some kind of difference. Used by the CVA. (The F-14 analog.)
A-14: basically the same as the real A-10, but has some combination of ADD system instead of drones. Only used by the CVA and on star bases.
A-21: basically the same as the A-20, but has more ADDs and more photon charges instead of drones.
There would be analogs of other fighters, too, but they aren't important enough to worry about for this discussion. If these are ever refined, any others should slot in easily enough (or be eliminated as irrelevant).
No fighters can use drones. No fighters are actually modified from drone fighters. All fighters use existing system rules as noted in the prior posts. Fighters are deployed 50/50 on their carriers, though some small carriers might carry only ADD fighters.

So, does that work to make the fighter ideas clearer?

And, again, these are just intended to be a starting point. The photon A fighters probably need some tweaking. The specific number of ADDs can be adjusted. The mix of RALADs and ADD racks can slide around to balance things out. These are just an outline to work from. The main point is a 50/50 split between assault and superiority. Assault uses photons and superiority uses ADDs in some combination.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Sunday, September 04, 2022 - 01:16 am: Edit

Most of my previous comments have been addressed one way or another. While I still hold the opinion that drone-less feds would come late to the fighter party, Mike makes a compelling case for a more traditional fleet

But there is a part of this that has me wondering something else…. If your going to be adding photons to large numbers of ‘basic’ fighters, why not reach into the optional rules and equip these smaller F8/F18 fighters with the mini-photon instead? This would have some damage reduction but would address the power needs of the carrier and her escorts when it comes to reloading them. Also, will you design the carrier escorts will have the needful ready racks to service the carrier’s fighters and reload their photons and/or phaser pods. If memory serves standard fed escorts cannot reload fighter photons.

Just a thought.