Hellbore CA variants
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Ships:
R09: HYDRAN PROPOSALS:
Hellbore CA variants
When Gunboats first hit the scene, I can imagine the way many folks ended up running around like chickens with their heads cut off, both in trying to deal with the new paradigm and in trying to utilize it.
One thing I do know for certain is that the Lyrans were MAJOR users of Gunboats; virtually all of their SSDs show most, if not all, of their tractors having Mech-Links for (mostly casual) Gunboat utilization.
This proposal is meant as a demonstration of what I would expect of one Hydran reaction to the Lyran casual Gunboat deployment; a modification to some of their ships to exchange their normal Stingers for casual Gunboats of their own.
Basically, I'm imagining Hellbore armed CAs, which have small deployments of Stingers on board (two for the Iroquois and three for the Dragoon) as wonderfully useful tools for "Dimpling" a shield before a massive Hellbore strike.
WHAT IF, on the two Hellbore armed CAs, the fighters were removed, perhaps to be replaced with two (Iroquois) or three (Dragoon) REPAIR boxes, and mech links added to two of the tractor beams? Normally, I'd expect Harriers to be on board (with their Fusion Beams serving the "Shield Dimpling" role of the Stingers on the regular ships), but for a ship serving as a Hellbore Support Vessel for a predominantly Fusion/Fighter fleet, Hellions would work quite well too.
(NO Howlers or Valkyries!! 
)
Does this seem not unreasonable to anyone else?
My first thought: Pseudofighters! Well, you are directly replacing casual Stingers with a more survivable platform, admittably with more BPV your opponent can spend to keep it interesting.
What opposition will you face? I see three main types: pure ship, opposition with PFs, or opposition with fighters. A pure ship will have more upgrades and refits than you, it may even be the next class up. A Klingon kaptain may choose the Deluxe Drone Assortment, a Lyran might pick up a power canoe. Still, if you are used to sending Stingers against ships, sending Harriers should be much the same. One upgrade might be a downgrade, saving BPV to get a second ship against you. I suppose the Hellbore CA with casual PFs are for individual patrol (duels) or an up to 3 or 4 ship force. A fleet operating under a unified doctrine of PFs weakening a shield for any Hellbore ship to fire at would be better off converting six casual PFs into a formal flotilla, getting a scout and EW support from the PFT.
A casual PF ship you might meet poses a dilemma. Those PFs might keep yours from plinking the opponent's shields, or they might come plink your shields, tempting you to call back your PFs to hold them off. I'd say stick to what you are designed to do, dimple a shield and envelope the ship.
Fighters: Klingons are not casually carrying a few, Lyrans even less so. Say you might catch a light carrier without its escorts. I'm scared for my Harriers vs. fighters. Perhaps it's worth letting the carrier have its escorts if I get some buddies.
Do not forget that every single Hydran cruiser currently in the game, and with no additional rules, can already carry two gunboats. It's already there in (R1.R1). So, making any kind of special modification to carry two gunboats is kinda pointless, since that rule already exists with no changes to the SSD.
So, really, what you are asking is to replace fighters with repair. In that case, my question is why? With no changes a Dragoon can carry three Stingers and two Harriers. With your change the Dragoon can carry two Harriers. Where is the win?
I suppose the advantage would be ability to repair damaged PFs, making the force more sustainable. For a ship that's not a "true" tender, I'm not sure that justifies loss of the fighters, especially for the Hydrans.
First, you'll have to convince SPP that a ship that isn't a PFT can have repair boxes (or SVC for an override) ... plus why a Dragoon would give up its fighters for repair when it can take two casual PFs by (R1.R1) ...
This makes no sense.
JGA is proposing an alternative method of adding casual PF’s that is by definition less effective than Rule (R1.R1).
You can already get there by forgoing the purchase of fighters via the use of Commanders Option points.
Perhaps I missed it, but is there any positive rationale for a case where this proposal yields any positive gain for the Hydran player?
I really hope this proposal is not accepted.
I am sensing a common, and VERY reasonable view; "Why give up the fighters?"
Two thoughts come to mind. First, there are a number of Hellbore armed ships that have no fighters, up to and including the Tartar and Apache Medium Cruisers. This is just another "Step Up" in that chain.
Second, the Lyrans and Klingons will also possibly (probably?) be using casual gunboats. With this screwball idea, the Hydrans are just "Keeping up with the Joneses," and "Eliminating" the fighters can serve to eliminate the problem of integrating fighter and Gunboat operations.
As far as replacing fighters with "Repair" boxes goes, that was just a "Hey, something useful?" off-hand thought, and it was NOT a good one.
Still, I appreciate the good thoughts and honest opinions from everyone, and would like to hear more.
Well, in fairness, the ability to repair the PFs is a "positive gain" for the Hydran. But I don't think it's enough of one to offset the loss of the fighters' firepower. The loss of fighters to improve a ship's PF capabilities isn't inherenetly crazy. It's just that in this particular case I don't think it makes sense. The Hydrans lose too much for what they gain.
Jeff Anderson:
Others have cited rule (R1.1), and this is little improvement to that rule. Repair boxes on PFTs are rule limited to 100 points during a scenario, and also limited to PFs (and Interceptors) or shuttles (includes fighters), no ships can be repaired with these repair boxes. See rule (K2.611). That is enough repairs (roughly) to get one PF back to combat readiness, provided it is not completely shot up (fixing the six warp engines of one PF alone would require 60 damage repair points). Also note that repair is not free, to get repair points each repair box individually must be powered (G17.21). The Dragoon you are providing three repair systems has to provide three points to this boxes, i.e., the loading of one of those hellbores, and it will take it some time repair a PF with just three points a turn.
Seriously, anyone proposing designing a PFT should study the repair rules. In the game right now the worst repair capable PfT is the Seltorian light PF tender with just two repair boxes for its three (or four) PFs. But then, the Seltorians probably consider repairing PFs to be a rare thing. The Lyran Light PFT mounts six. But powering those takes some thought.
A couple of points concerning power in defense* of Jeff's proposal:
1. The fighters he is proposing giving up also require power if they are to be used to maximum capabilities.
2. The Dragoon has an outstanding power availability for a CA and can afford to power the repair boxes better than most other cruisers (the exceptions being "fast" cruisers, X-cruisers, and some BCHs) can.
*I hope my previous comments have made it clear that I am generally dubious about this proposal as I believe the Hydran fighters are tremendously "cost effective". In my personal opinion, the best fighters given equal numbers (rather than equal BPV) are the best of the drone-armed fighters, especially once fast drones are available. But once the cost for drone speed upgrades is figured in, I am not convinced they are as good as the Hydran fighters, BPV-to-BPV.
Just my .02 quatloos worth. YMM, as they say, V.
Lot to be said in favor of non-drone fighters, not least of which is a fixed BPV price point.
As drone speeds increase, coupled with more advanced fighters with additional drone rail’s, it materially increases the total BPV’s required to kit out fighter squadrons.
In my opinion, the joker here is the Hydran fighters JGA wants to abandon. We can calculate the value lost as it is equal to the BPV of the missing fighters. The repair capacity is an intangible value, in that it does have a value. It just does not equate with combat BPV.
The paradox here, is that the best/latest drone armed fighters, (in a BPV-to-BPV match up) force the Player with such drone armed fighters, must, by definition, reduce the total number of BPV’s to be spent on ships.
Late war drone armed fighters in squadron strength become, in effect, a big hammer. At the same time, the ships that carry the hammer into battle, become weaker.
You can’t just analyze the strike force, you have to include the ships used to transport the fighters into battle.
I think Alan is spot on with his assessment.
Alan Trevor:
I assume you are referring to lending the fighters EW. Charging the fusions takes a point of power per charge, a maximum of eight points of power for one fighter, or 24 points for three fighters. But since the first two charges are essentially free, I have to assume you mean the EW lending. I still think you are under estimating the cost of repair boxes. It takes three units of energy, which is less than the six you might generate for the fighters, but tends to be a constant demand if you are going to make use of it during a scenario.
SPP,
No, I was referring to arming the fighters; the lending of EW being an additional possible cost. I don't actually think this situation is so different from powering repair boxes.
At the start of the battle, the Dragoon is not paying to arm the fighters because, unless the Hydrans were surprised, the "ready racks" already have charges for the fusion beams.
At the start of the battle, the "modified Dragoon" is not paying to power repair boxes because the PFs are undamaged.
At some later point, the Stinger-IIs have expended their fusion beams and need to return to the ship to rearm (or fight on with gatling phasers only, which may be viable). Eventually, if the battle continues for awhile, the Dragoon may have exhausted the charges in the ready racks.
At some later point, one or more of the Harriers is damaged and needs to return to the ship to be repaired (or continue to fight on in a damaged status, which may be viable depending on the extent of the damage and whether the PF can keep fresh shields toward the enemy).
In both cases the Hydran is not expending power for the attrition units at the beginning of the battle, except for possibly lending EW to fighters. At some later point (the length of time being variable) the Hydran may need to expend power to keep the attrition units fighting at full capability, whether they be Stinger-IIs or Harriers. They then need to decide whether keeping the attrition units at full capability is, or is not, a better use for that power than dedicating all of it the Dragoon's own weapons and systems.
But in any case I've already expressed doubt that the proposed refit is actually a good idea for the Hydrans. Those Stingers are really, really useful.