Federation Third Way Death Riders
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Ships:
R02: FEDERATION PROPOSALS:
Federation Third Way Death Riders
As we all know, the Federation never deployed Gunboats; their "Third Way," making extensive use of F-111s and F-101s was meant as their way of doing so without running up the casualties expected in extensive Gunboat operations.
This left them without one aspect of Gunboat operations; one which, while only rarely used, is still an aspect that the Federation has no capacity of whatsoever.
I'm referring to Death Riders.
While it is true that the Federation was probably able to produce more suicide freighters than anyone else, I would still like to propose a way for the Federation to use F-101s and F-111s as types of Death Riders.
Please note that I'm excluding a good number of other units, notably A-20s and all bomber types. These are for different reasons, but of course can be discussed. 
For starters, why not the A-20s. This is because they don't have the Bomb Bays. Bomb Bays are where the explosive charge is loaded, prepped, and made ready to kaboom. Given that Federation shuttles with the bomb bays are able to carry and deploy T-bombs from them, it seems not unreasonable to assume they're capable of carrying an unshelled nuclear charge.
The charges I'm seeing are for the F-101 (with a two space bomb bay) to carry a bomb the size of one used by Death Rider Interceptors (25 points; K7.181) while the F-111 (with a three space bomb bay) to carry a bomb the size of one used by PF Gunboat Death Riders (35 points; K7.16)
Please note that the latter is the same explosion strength as a NSM, something normally occupying FOUR bomb bay spaces, but this includes the shell for the charge, sensors, stealth equipment, power for its sensors, and a smegload of other stuff; things that aren't necessary for the explosive charges aboard these Death Rider Heavy Fighters.
Bombers aren't usable in this role because, as purely planetary defense weapons, the lack of forewarning of an attack on a planet doesn't leave enough time to do the (K7.17) preparations (after all, if there was enough forewarning of an attack on a planet, the defenders would be expected to have one heck of a fleet show up for its defense).
Federation Heavy Fighter Death Riders would also be subject to both the rules of (K7.3) Controlled Death Riders and (J15.0) Remote Controlled Fighters; they lack the capability to be sent off as Autonomous Death Riders (K7.2) because... Oh, I'll make up a reason for that later.
Anyhow, it's an idea that's been bubbling up in my alleged mind. What do y'all think of it?
It somehow feels simultaneously too strong and too weak.
A squadron of (heavy) fighters is smaller and cheaper than a squadron of PFs, so this is maybe too good.
But, unlike "real" death riders, the fighters have no shields and if using booster packs (which they probably need to kill a ship) are extremely vulnerable to counter-fire.
Finally, the technobabble you really need is why these things aren't just remote controlled fighters with a very special payload. Which would, I think, be clearly far too strong.
Dlampert, I think you nailed it.
F-101 or F-111 fighters in their normal role would be far more use full.
Death Riders are clearly rule K module size class 5 units.
There is only one other platform that could be used.
I expect Petrick will go ballistic if/when someone gets around to suggesting the only remaining option.
For the record, I am POINTEDLY avoiding naming the other option.
If any of you wish to pitch the idea, I advise the use of an 11 foot stainless steel pole (for those who refuse to touch the subject with ten foot wooden pole.)
Instead of going into just how much more damage a gunboat can take versus an F-111, I have a much more basic question:
Does anyone actually use death riders?
Seriously, are these things ever actually used? Is there even a scenario that includes them? I know a suicide freighter has at least one scenario (though, to be honest, it starts AFTER the impact). There may be more of them. But is there one with death riders?
Of all the things to complain out and situations that put the Feds at a disadvantage because of the lack of gunboats, I really don't see death riders as one of them.
But, hey, maybe that's me.
Mike,
I've considered using Death-Riders from time to time but always ended up using regular PFs instead. I once had a brilliant scheme as the Romulans, to use a bunch of cloaked, controlled Death-Riders, which could be very difficult to stop.
Unfortunately, checking K7.61 confirmed that Death-Riders cannot cloak. I suspect ADB thought of that scheme before the Death-Rider rules were ever published.
I'm not sure what Jeff W. is being coy about. Workboats? Skiffs? It's relevant to the topic. Not much point in using fighters as death-riders if the Feds already have better alternatives.
Has there ever been a definitive ruling on whether these units can use the rule? I believe the death-rider rules were written before workboats and skiffs were added to the game.
Douglas, yes, the rules do predate skiffs and work boats.
That said, PFs, skiffs and workboats are all size class 5 units detailed under module K-1.
Since the Federation chooses t not use PF’s, there are but two other options that fall into the same rules module and size class.
I haven’t talked to Petrick, but I would suspect that he would not look at any proposed death Rider rules for either work boats OR skiffs favorably.
According to K7.17 "Death-Riders are difficult and dangerous to prepare and are never stored for possible use. They are created when a planned mission calls for them and used only in attacks"
K7.171 adds "A base can never have its own PFs prepared for use in 'defending' the base unless allowed by a scenario rule."
So even if it is technically feasible to use a skiff as a death-rider it would probably be difficult to find the opportunity. The target would have to be close by (since skiffs can't be transported on mech-links) and it seems unlikely that the enemy would be that close to the skiffs' base unless they were moving in to attack it (which would then invoke K7.171). Skiffs are also slow and not usually in the habit of charging the enemy so it's not very likely that the enemy would fail to perceive the threat in time to counter it.
Workboats would be more practical since they are faster and can be transported on mech-links and could easily be mistaken for the combat versions of the same hull. However, they are so poorly armed I think they would be easily overwhelmed by enemy seeking weapons or attrition units.
My friends, I think I owe you all an apology.
BIG time.
Last night, I had an image; a Federation group making use of F-101 type Death Riders facing a Borak group centered around a strike carrier.
I clearly saw that even the F-101s were vastly more powerful than the Borak HKs. They're able to launch their drones using Scatter Pack type rules (I don't have my J2 rulebook in front of me to quote the rule directly, but I do know remotely piloted fighters have that advantage) to create a wall of drones to open up the defenses for them to strike. They then follow that up with a much larger warhead PLUS an enemy is unlikely to even see that they ARE the type of seeking weapon that they are.
All in all, it convinced me that this is a VERY bad proposal and, in retrospect, I shouldn't have made it.
Again, you have my apologies.
Perhaps this thread can be used for further discussions on standard Death Riders?
In his 6:16 PM post on 16 September, Mike West asked whether anyone actually used Death-Riders. No one replied that they did use them. Since Death-Riders are taken from old, worn outs PFs, you could conceivably have a campaign rule for them.
Suppose under the campaign rules, PFs (which are not built for long service lives the way ships are) are allowed only a limited number of sorties* in the campaign before they are declared "worn out". At that point the owning player would have two choices; either scrap them for some limited economic salvage value, or convert them to be Death-Riders.
This is more in the way of a thought experiment than a serious proposal. And I doubt most campaigns would wish to deal with that level of bookkeeping.
*Not all sorties would count the same (even more bookkeeping required). A routine ferry mission or a training flight wouldn't count as much as combat mission for accumulation of wear-and-tear. And a combat mission in which the specific PF was not fired on (or in which all incoming fire was stopped by the shields) wouldn't cause as much wear as one in which the PF was damaged, even if the damage was all subsequently repaired.
As I said, just a thought experiment for introducing Death-Riders into a campaign.
Something that would be more likely for the Feds would be to stuff explosives into a POL. It would essentially be a faster suicide freighter,
Quote:Something that would be more likely for the Feds would be to stuff explosives into a POL.
No. Each Police Cutter is way too valuable to the Federation to start throwing them away like that. The value of a Police Cutter is way more than its combat value.
The POL is also a pre-war ship. As such, I would expect the bureaucrats would have been very interested in having them designed for a service life of at least twenty years, probably FAR more (they'd want to get their moneys worth out of them).
(A long-standing preconception I have; take it for what it's worth... )
“ No. Each Police Cutter is way too valuable to the Federation to start throwing them away like that. The value of a Police Cutter is way more than its combat value.”
But by the time of PFs, they were outclassed by almost everything the Orions had, right?
No,.
That is not a fair statement.
You are comparing a size class 5 hull to a size class 4 ship.
The POL class is old, but it has a number of outstanding characteristics.
For one, it has endurance. The PF’s have a 96 hour absolute limit, a POL (depending on circumstances can be on its assigned patrol station for months.)
A second, is its ability to undertake long range missions. All PF’s maximum range is but 2 f&e hexes (roughly 1,000 parsecs.). A POL has ship range, in f&E terms 6 hexes, or 3,000 parsecs. (In Star Fleet Battles, it could be longer, depending on the circumstances. Using strategic movement in F&E, (up to 12 f&E hexes, or 6,000 parsecs.)
A third is crew . A normal PF (not a work boat or a troop carrier) normally has 30 to 40 crew. A POL can carry over 100 officers and crew. (In extreme circumstances, it could be more, say in rescue missions.)
A fourth lies in the range of the vessels armament.
In general, phasers and heavy weapons (excluding drones) are limited to 15 hexes. Drones (again excluding extended range bombardment drones) can be targeted up to a certain point (iirc that is up to 38 hexes, but I would have to verify that in the rules.). Once launched, drones (depending on the type) have limited endurance, 2 or 3 turns for most drones, up to 100 turns for extended range drones.
A fifth, is shields. PF’s do have shields, but normally, ships shields are stronger. (There are exceptions, such as small freighters , fed Express Couriers and APTs.)
And I haven’t even started talking about those things that PF’s are deficient in.
Things like crew accommodations , labs, number of tractor beams, transporters. Leader Type PFs have shuttles, regular PFs do not.
Ships can use transporter bombs, PFs not so much. (unless it is a special mine variant.)
POL class ships have normally 6 boarding parties (with commanders option points, they could carry more than six, along with special other types of troops such as heavy weapon squads or commandos.)
Unless you are trying to compare one or more PF flotillas to a single POL... but then that is an apples or oranges comparison. In missions known to have serious enemies, POL’s would be reinforced. Two or even three POL hulls is not uncommon. Even navy ships when the situation requires it.
Quote:In general, phasers and heavy weapons (excluding drones) are limited to 15 hexes.
Jeff, are you talking about the range of PF weapons? If so, you're a little off. PF phasers are limited to 15 hexes but PF direct fire heavy weapons are generally limited to 10 hexes. The one exception I can think of for a direct fire heavy weapon is the photon torpedo, which has a range of 12 hexes. Of course, historically only the Orions ever deployed PFs with photon torpedoes*, and only in limited numbers.
*As a partisan of the Tholians, it always slightly annoyed me that the Tholians never got a photon-armed PF. But trying to be fair, it's probably for the best. There are some powerful synergies with web casters and photon torpedoes. And while the Tholians do have photon-armed warships, they don't have many. If they could field a full flotilla of photon-armed PFs on their NSCS (three web casters), it would make a... formidable... combination.
Agreed a Police Ship is too valuable of an asset to throw away as a suicide ship. I figure absolute last thing the Feds would do is sell the older Hull in excess of their storage plans to Member Planets Nation Guard or Custom Services.
However if such a plan was carried out what about a Fowler? Corvette? I feel it would have to be a super special reason thought to consider this one standard Suicide Freighters.
This is in reply to By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, September 19, 2022 - 10:04 am
If you want a "wear and tear" rule for a campaign, make it as simple as possible, you don't track individual wear and tear on individual PFs.
Each month of normal operations and each internal on a PF that survives the engagement inflicts one "PF wear and tear" on the owner's forces.
When PF wear and tear points equal or exceed 150, you need to scrap or convert to death-rider one PF. (Either of which clears 150 wear and tear points.)
You can adjust the 150 number, but the idea is simply to track the general force condition to produce a non-combat-loss attrition rate. You don't track individual PFs, because some probably come straight out of the factory as hanger queens, while another gets crippled five times and is converted to a workboat 12 years after first commissioning still working fine. The points are simply an abstract tracking of about how many PFs need to leave service at any given time.
Edited repeatedly because I can't write today.
I do not think that would work because death riders would not appear very often in such a system.
SPP,
But how often do death-riders appear "historically"? Mike West asked whether anyone actually uses death-riders and no one has answered affirmatively. He also pointed out the scarcity of published death-rider scenatios.
In the "historical" SFU, were death-riders a commonly used tactic or were they kind of an oddball tactic, used... occasionally? The evidence, at least so far as I can tell, supports the latter.
Alan T.
Yes, I meant to reference PF’s having a reduced range compared to regular star ships.
Thank you for the clarification.
"The PF’s have a 96 hour absolute limit"
I don't think this is canon. IIRC there is a SVC story about a PF flotilla commander and his missions... Which seems to counter the quote.
From K3.1:
"Since an interceptor had room for several crewmen to move around, make repairs, and perform maintenance, it could stay in space for several times as long as a fighter (although still for only 24-48 hours)."
From K0.21
"Most PFs are towed by starships or operated from bases. An average mission lasts less than 48 hours."
From K6.0
"Most PF missions are planned to use only 80% of the effective range of the PFs"
There are it seems to me two limits, one is the crew duration, which is flexible because in an emergency the crew can stay on board for a lot longer than you'd ordinarily want them to.
The second is the technobabble about warp-booster packs, but my understanding is that if you really need longer duration then you can either park on a rock somewhere and let the engines recover (using impulse for vital functions while waiting) or just drop the packs.
So there's not really a hard limit, but there's a functional limit at something like 48 hours or 1,250 parsecs.
Douglas, the technobabble addresses this point. The main engines lack a maintenance purge ability. They lack the actual hardware to purge the ionic buildup. It’s not the packs it’s the base engine. The packs just build up the charge faster. The game smooths out the record keeping by allowing for a net reduction in build rate when you drop the packs.
PFTs have — integrated into the docking cradles — the missing hardware, though it takes strategic time scale to purge the buildup. (Five turns from a hairs breadth from destruction down to a hairs breadth under the critical level, or about 650+ turns give or take to bring an at-the-absolute-limit PF down to full cold. (K6.11)
That’s the limiting factor on independent operations away from their tender/base. The only way to avoid the build up, is to hard stop the warm engines altogether and wait for rescue. (K6.33)
Dang, I thought it was 96 hours.
I should have reviewed the rules before posting.
Sorry for the error.