I feel like I'm likely dragging this out for longer than it's worth... but technically, one would not need to invent a new Klingon-type fighter. One could take a Klingon design and swap out each of its drones for RALADs under (J12.11).

Or, to look at it another way: under the current playtest Fighters Attack rules (as shown here), there is no "F-18" or "Z-Y": there is a "drone-armed fighter" with a certain number of damage boxes depending on the operating empire, yet which otherwise functions identically from one operating empire to another.

So, in principle, one could take the Carnivon Jackal-4 from Module C6 - which in SFB terms has two FA phaser-3s and a six-shot ADD - to use as the basis for an "anti-drone-armed fighter" in FC terms. Then, one could apply those same rules [with the number of damage boxes reduced from 14 to 12, to match the Klingon "drone-armed fighter" listed in (5Q4a)] as an alternate "no-drone" option for the Lyrans, LDR, and/or Seltorians.

Although, whether or not anyone would want to use such an option is, of course, another story.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, July 10, 2022 - 09:13 am: Edit

On the fighters in the FC preview rules, they are an F-18, Z-Y, and TAAS. It is just that they are listed together as "drone-armed" fighters to keep the rules as simple as possible. Plus, since those rules are previews, they are intentionally written to be compact. I am pretty sure that when/if published, while still grouped together, they'll be specifically identified with their proper names.

But this is now way off-topic, so please move this to a more appropriate topic if you want to continue it.

By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Sunday, July 10, 2022 - 01:53 pm: Edit

I was thinking along similar lines to you, Gary, though in my version the races using Klingon fighters adapt the Z-D disruptor-armed fighters rather than ADD-based platforms. So the LDR get their Snapper-2s (10 dmg, 1xPh-G, 4xDisr, PV=11), the Lyrans get a slightly more survivable Z-D (12 dmg, 2xPh-3, 2xDisr, PV=10), and the Selts swap the disruptor charges for PCs (Z-PC: 10 dmg, 2xPh-3, 4xPC charges, PV=10). The advantage I saw in this was that disruptors allow the fighters to adopt an assault role, and that the rules for disruptor charge usage are similar to the Hydran fusion charges.

ADD-armed fighters aren't capable of taking on an assault role, as ADDs can't be fired at ships (only drones, fighters or shuttles). Personally I find such fighters pretty one-dimensional to fly. Disruptor fighters are still worse than drone fighters, but at least they can present some kind of threat to enemy ships.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, July 10, 2022 - 04:45 pm: Edit

Seriously, can we take the FC fighter talk to where FC and fighters are supposed to be talked about? I am more than willing to continue the conversation, just not here.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, January 14, 2023 - 12:17 am: Edit

Waves of Dis-Unity
Gary Carney
HMCS Ontario

As noted in the "update" file from Captain's Log #48, it is possible for the "Mapsheet P" Paravians from Star Fleet Battles Module C6 to find themselves participating in Operation Unity. Once in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud, the Paravian task force would learn of the existence of the Jumokian pirates - who, as a reptilian species, would no doubt fall under the same "demonic" category as the Gorns and Pronhoulites back in the Alpha Octant.

Thus, even if one were to assume that the Paravians stay "on-script" long enough to destroy the third Desecrator, it might be an open question as to whether this would remain the case in the post-Unity era. While for their part, as speculated upon in (FQ1.143), it's possible that the Jumokians themselves might consider the usefulness - or otherwise - of the quantum wave torpedo as a "pirate" weapon in the LMC, akin to the Orion use of the QWT back in Alpha.

Indeed, even in the standard timeline, it's likely that the Jumokians would learn of the existence of the Paravians of Omega (and vice versa) in the wake of the GSX Sakharov's return from the Omega Octant in Y219. Although, at this time of writing, it remains to be verified whether those Paravians - or, for that matter, any Zosman Marauder cells in or close to Omega-Paravian space - use the same QWT rules as their "lost empire" counterparts or not.

But in any case, how effective would the QWT be in a Magellanic context?

On the one hand, (ME1.3321) states that warp-tuned lasers add one to the amount of damage required to reduce a given plasma-like warhead by one point with phaser fire. Since (FQ1.388) permits warp-tuned lasers to damage quantum wave torpedoes in the same manner as plasma torpedoes, this would set a 2:1 damage ratio (as opposed to the 3:1 ratio against most plasma-like weapons, or the 4:1 ratio against Probr HEATs) for warp-tuned lasers against QWTs.

On the other hand, should a given QWT warhead manage to impact a trio of adjacent Magellanic outer shield facings, its "splash" elements would be reduced in a similar manner to those of a plasmatic pulsar device's wave pulse under (MD2.215). As in, since the Volley Reduction Factor of a given outer shield facing drops "odd" points of damage from an incoming volley up to the VRF's calculated amount, a lone QWT impact would lose the "splash" elements to their respective outer shields' VRFs. However, as the inner shields of Magellanic ships do not possess the Volley Reduction Factor, any QWT damage - "splash" or otherwise - is scored normally, as per (PQ1.344).

So where does all of this leave the Paravians - or, for that matter, any Jumokian (or possibly Orion or Zosman) ship using QWTs in their option mounts?

For the Paravians, pursuing "demonic" Jumokian pirate ships might require concentrating QWT launches in "even" batches (two, four, or more at a time), so as to ensure that at least some of the "splash" elements make it through the VRF upon impact. Or, perhaps it might involve keeping their QWTs in reserve until one or more of the Jumokians' outer shield facings have been dropped by phaser fire (or by the use of T-bombs and/or suicide shuttles), so as to enable "splash" damage against any exposed inner shields.

As for the Jumokians: there is likely no point even bothering to try and shoot down incoming QWT warheads, at least so long as the outer shield facings are up. Better to focus the bulk of warp-tuned laser fire on the launching ships themselves, or perhaps on shooting down any suicide shuttles being launched at close range. And if things don't go well, the use of the distortion field generator won't help against incoming QWT launches directly, but would still permit the Jumokian ship to disengage by separation under (MG1.322) if needs be.

So far as using the QWT as a "pirate" weapon goes: it might be useful when targeting Magellanic Pinnaces (which have inner shields only) or against enemies with single-layer shields or PA panels, but perhaps less so against other LMC warships. Not least since QWTs require active fire control to be launched under (FQ1.312); a Jumokian ship dropping or voiding an active DFG would have to wait at least four impulses for its own active fire control to be re-established under (MG1.311).

In short: even if the Paravians were to go "off-script" and seek out Jumokian pirate ships to destroy, they might find their QWTs to be sub-optimal against the Volley Reduction Factor of LMC outer shields. As for the Jumokians themselves: they might find the QWT to have some use as a "pirate" weapon, though perhaps to a lesser extent than the Orions (or Zosmans?) in the Milky Way Galaxy.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, March 22, 2023 - 08:46 am: Edit

Board Those Boats
Mike West
USS Texas

Boarding Party action on gunboats is very limited and tight. Basically, there is only room for the one defending boarding party and an enemy boarding party. (Except for leaders. I'm ignoring them here. We're picking one of the others.) While H&R raids cannot be made, straight up boarding actions can be. If given the opportunity on an otherwise relatively undamaged gunboat, consider transporting a boarding part over to it. This is a one-on-one duel, but it is still very helpful. If the defender does not convert a crew unit to militia, there is about a 50/50 chance of eventual success. If they do convert a crew unit to militia, then the gunboat's combat ability is severely compromised. Either is a win.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, March 22, 2023 - 03:41 pm: Edit

OK, I made an error in the above. I should have said, "there is about a 22% chance of immediate victory and a 44% chance to try again."

Assuming everything is otherwise equal in a one-on-one fight, both will kill each other 11% of the time, both will survive 44% of the time, and each then has a 22% chance of immediate victory. Over time, I am not sure how it divides out because each round there is a 11% chance both lose and it stops, so I am not sure how high that 22% gets to eventually raise to.

The general tactic is still valid. It isn't a high percentage chance, but it is a real one with a relevant chance of success.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, March 23, 2023 - 08:21 am: Edit

MjWest. Nice.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, March 23, 2023 - 09:23 am: Edit

The series converges to 40% win, 20% both die, 40% lose. You can do this sort of calculation by treating "try again" as a non-result and counting chances in the remaining results as those are the only results that end the series.

In this case, out of 36 chances, 8 win, 4 tie, 8 lose, 16 continue. Throw away the chance of continue, and you have 20 possible final results: 8 in 20 win so 40%.

This assumes that a result of "continue rolling" doesn't change anything and that you'll keep rolling forever if it keeps coming up, which isn't actually the case, as there's also a chance that after 6 rounds of this the battle ends and the PF converts a crew to militia and docks or that someone gets tired of being shot at by a PF with ongoing combat and a down shield and just shoots the thing.

What happens if a PF with boarding party combat going on docks?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, March 23, 2023 - 09:55 am: Edit

---

Quote:

What happens if a PF with boarding party combat going on docks?

---

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, March 23, 2023 - 10:47 am: Edit

Yeah, one on two continues was the obvious, but what if instead of having the militia fight, it simply evacuates (or is taken as a casualty) and is replaced by "real" BP.

Remember that militia squads are twice the size of a BP, can I send 2 BP in to replace the single missing militia? There's enough space, but the rules don't specify that I can.

Similarly, do I need an opperating crew once docked, or can I evac those guys and replace them with additional marines? Or have them also convert to militia since they're no longer needed to keep the PF functioning.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Thursday, March 23, 2023 - 10:52 am: Edit

>> Or is the luckiest group ever and somehow kills the initial boarding party, the gunboat militia, and all reinforcement boarding parties, which can include the ship's militia, too.

There's an idea for a fiction piece!

--Mike

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, March 23, 2023 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Douglas,

While the body count numbers might work to just pull the crew and replace them with the ship's BP until the invader is dead, that's not how the rules are currently written.

Besides, the invading BP is screwed in this case. As long as the defender keeps replacing the slain defending BP with a new one, the PF militia can never be killed until all replacement BPs are killed first.

In any given round, the invader has a 66% chance to live in a one-on-one fight. That drops to 33% in a one-on-two fight. On a free floating PF, get lucky early, and the odds balance back out after that. When docked, it becomes a never-ending one-on-two fight.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, April 05, 2023 - 09:18 pm: Edit

2 Strands are Better Than 3
John Christiansen
USS California

When playing the Tholians defending a base and using a buzzsaw for your webs, choose 2 strands instead of 3 with each strand having 2 web hexes adjacent to the base. There are several reasons to do this.

The 2 web hexes per strand adjacent to the core gives the base better protection.

BPV cost. There are 9 web anchors needed for each 30 hex web strand in either a 2 strand or 3 strand buzzsaw web. The 2 strand buzzsaw saves the BPV of the 9 anchors not needed. Then there's the webs' reduced BPV burden. You will need to pay for only 60 hexes of web instead of 90. So either the BPV of the initial web hexes will be reduced, or for an initial BPV, the web strands' aggregate strength can be significantly higher.

Power. 60 web hexes require only 2/3 of the power to maintain and to reinforce to a higher aggregate strength point level than 90 web hexes require. This allows a smaller fleet of ships to maintain and reinforce the web.

Associated with powering up the webs are the Tholian ships' choices of location to do so. For a 3 strand buzzsaw, the only location from which a Tholian unit can power any of the 3 strands is at the core. This matters when the Tholian ships are harassing or threatening to harass the enemy. Tholian ships may obviously add power to the strand between themselves and the enemy 2 hexes away, but the strand opposite the enemy is out of reach of that Tholian ship. This may be an avenue for the enemy to escape. For a 2 strand buzzsaw, every channel hex is adjacent to both strands, so ships can harass and reinforce either web from any channel hex.

Mines. With only 2 channels for the enemy to choose, the Tholians' mines will be more concentrated where the enemy will need to go.

Tholian phaser effectiveness. The 3 strand buzzsaw is more spread out by necessity of the web rules. This makes most of the channel hexes farther from the core than for many of the corresponding 2 strand buzzsaw hexes. This means the Tholians' phasers may have to use damage columns for a greater range, or allow the enemy to travel farther along a channel before firing. This will reduce either the number of firing opportunities for the Tholians or the damage output of their phasers. Add to this that the phasers' damage reduction due to firing through web hexes is often less for a 2 strand buzzsaw.

There is only 1 quality of a 3 strand buzzsaw which is superior to that of a 2 strand buzzsaw. The number of channel hexes, those hexes surrounded by 4 web hexes, for a 3 strand buzzsaw is only 1 hex greater than that of a 2 strand buzzsaw. From the channel entrance to hex adjacent to the core is 22 hexes for a 3 strand buzzsaw, but only 21 hexes for 2 strands.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 - 08:15 am: Edit

Breaking the BuzzSaw
Mike Grafton
USS Kentucky

To take down a base protected by a BuzzSaw you have two options:

1) Drive down one of the channels until you get to the center. This is what the Tholian wants you to do. There WILL be mines and all kinds of nastiness in there designed to punish you.

2) Or pick your range and destroy the asteroids anchoring it. Remember that damaging asteroids is "general destruction;" so every shot hits. Large cheap drones are especially good at this; remember asteroids can't weasel. The base can still use its special sensor to turn off drones though; plan for that.

Bring a lunch, this will take a while. And be prepared; the Tholian reinforcements will arrive eventually.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 - 09:31 am: Edit

---

Quote:

2) Or pick your range and destroy the asteroids anchoring it.

---

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 - 11:33 am: Edit

Mike, what Mark said. (G10.1314)

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Beat them into small enough pieces...
Then spent the next 10 years teleporting
them out of the pile a few at a time..

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 - 02:54 pm: Edit

"Beat them into small enough pieces...
Then spent the next 10 years teleporting
them out of the pile a few at a time.. "

The Leavenworth Sector?

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, May 10, 2023 - 07:45 am: Edit

Poo.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, May 10, 2023 - 11:49 am: Edit

Thoroughly insane (and impractical) idea for breaking a Buzzsaw.

I've never flown against one, but it seems not unreasonable is the thing that makes a buzzsaw work is the minefield.

What about using a slew of expendable ships, namely unmanned small freighters (outfitted with suicide freighter controls?) down the gaps to clear out the automatic mines down to the point where REAL ships can self-entangle and start pounding the base?

Remotely piloted ADMIN can clear out T-bombs set for Size Class 6 targets to clear the way for fighter strikes.

Expensive? Yes. (Aw, heck! I'll just name the tactic after a certain current politician and get my feet `Gatored off!) Realistic? No. Possible? Whadda ya all think?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, May 10, 2023 - 01:48 pm: Edit

The best way to deal with a Buzzsaw is to leave it alone. Bypass the thing, leaving a picket force behind to keep any Tholian ships at the base from emerging to interfere with your supply lines, and continue on with your operation.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Wednesday, May 10, 2023 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Mr. Anderson.......

What you describing sounds a little like the SFU version of the old saw about the Chinese Army issuing 200 rounds of ammo to every solider and only rifles to the first hundred as a cost cutting measure.

Also, you might want to look up M2.15 then M2.14. Also, the phasers on the base recycle every turn they have power... Shuttles are in finite supply.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, May 11, 2023 - 11:03 am: Edit

Yeah, small freighters and ph-4 aren’t a happy time for the freighters.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, May 11, 2023 - 05:36 pm: Edit

Two fig leaves in my defense?

First? I did say that it was an insane and impractical idea...

Second? I did say that the freighters were regarded as both unmanned and expendable.

IMO, the only people who'd realistically consider such a poor idea would be corrupt planners getting kickbacks from the shipyards contracted to build replacements for the kaboomed freighters...

(Personal note: I did edit out a reference to the aforementioned certain, current politician... )