I know that there is a prohibition on bolting plasma from a fighter. I also know this is going to be pushing that line. But, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Rule (FP14.11) says that it is theoretically possible for the plasma carronade to be deployed as a stand-alone, direct-fire only weapon. In such a case, it is not unreasonable to expect that any empire using the weapon in that way would also be able to make a fighter version of that weapon. While a fighter cannot handle the stress of converting a seeking plasma into a direct-fire bolt or carronade, in this case there is no conversion. Instead the weapon starts as a direct-fire carronade, and, as such, it shouldn't be any different from firing a photon or disruptor bolt.

In operation the fighter freezer box can hold up to four charges and each charge costs a single point of energy to charge. Each fighter can carry a pair of charges in a single carronade. The fighter carronade may be fired only once per turn and may use one or both charges in the shot doing normal carronade damage and using normal carronade rules (5 hex range, 3-4 points of damage, +1 damage if both charges used, FA arc). It may be necessary to increase that to three or even four charges, depending on how things show out. Regardless, the fighter can only fire the weapon once per turn. A single space fighter has one carronade with two charges. A double-space fighter has two carronades with two charges.

Assume such a fighter would look like a Pl-F fighter, but just replacing the single-charge Pl-F with a two-charge carronade. This gives damage of 3-4 with one charge and 4-5 with two charges. This is on par with a disruptor fighter, though with a much shorter range (5 hexes instead of 10 hexes). It is nonsensical compared to a real Pl-F fighter, but if seeking plasma isn't available, it could be a useful option.

Just trying to see if this is something that could be made workable, or if it is just flat out DOA and not worth thinking about ever again.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, November 06, 2023 - 09:21 pm: Edit

Oops. I guess this should have been under the FP weapons rather than the E weapons. If necessary, please move it. (Of course, if it is DOA, then don't move it; just delete it.)

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, November 07, 2023 - 11:32 am: Edit

Personally, Mike? I love the idea, but in terms of the Rules of the Game, IMO, a side-by-side comparison with a theoretical Ph-2 armed fighter would probably (I don't have any charts in front of me at the moment) show it to not be worthwhile.

"A" for effort, though.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, November 07, 2023 - 11:52 am: Edit

Actually, a Ph-2 fighter is a good comparison point. That would tend toward allowing four points of power to be used. That gives it a max damage capability of 6-7 if all power is used at once. Alternatively, it can be strung out for more shots. Plus it has longer range than a Ph-2 fighter. Of course, it isn't self-recharging, which means the Ph-2 fighter pretty much wins outright. But still, it isn't out of line. Good to know.

But none of this matters if it is DOA.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Tuesday, November 07, 2023 - 12:12 pm: Edit

I'll be interested to see what interest this generates, as I've had an idea banging around in the back of my head.

Plasma Carronade's were not part of the game as I learned it, and so far I've not built a strong idea of how they should work. But so far, if the point about a fighter having the structure sufficient for weapon release, I think its interesting.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, November 07, 2023 - 04:35 pm: Edit

I would tie the strength of the fighter-mounted plasma carronade to the amount of power loaded into the capacitor for said weapon on the carrier itself.

As in, if the PLC capacitor has only the first turn of arming (as if one was arming a "standard" plasma-F capacitor), it can be loaded onto the fighter - which, when launched, can fire it as a "standard" (one-point) carronade shot.

If the capacitor is loaded over two turns (again, as if loading a "standard" plasma-F capacitor), it can be loaded onto the fighter - which, when launched, can (or rather, must) fire it as a "reinforced" (two-point) carronade shot.

That is the limit I would impose for size-1 fighters. But for size-2 and larger fighters, I would permit the third turn of arming the capacitor (the same as completing a "standard" plasma-F capacitor) - which, when loaded onto the heavy fighter or bomber, can (or again, must) fire it as a fully "reinforced" (five-point) carronade shot.

In all three cases, loading the charge onto the fighter should require a deck crew action.

-----

On a side note: if both the unit firing the plasma carronade and the unit being fired upon are under the effects of passive fire control, does the weapon still use the true range?

Of course, the carronade was originally intended for use in the Alpha Octant against ships lurking under cloak. (Which technically also makes it handy against Jumokian distortion field generators over in the post-Unity Lesser Magellanic Cloud.) But if the firing ship can be under passive fire control and still use the true range rather than the effective range, this would make the weapon useful as well against Zosman Stealth fields over in the Omega Octant.

Actually, now that I think about it, I wonder to what extent the carronade is effective (for ships, but not for fighters) inside a nebula - which might perhaps make it an interesting weapon to consider for the Nebuline over in the M81 Galaxy...

My point being that, even if there was not a lot of room to make the PLC an historical weapon in the Alpha Octant, perhaps there might be a faction elsewhere in the Star Fleet Universe (in Omega, the LMC, M81, Triangulum, or elsewhere) which could make use of it as a "real" weapon. And if that faction - whichever it happens to be - is in a setting where fighters are a thing, the arming rules being discussed in this thread could then be applied for them in turn.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, November 07, 2023 - 05:45 pm: Edit

To be clear, I am saying each charge is a single point of power. The point is to NOT lock this into a Pl-F firing pattern. It is to NOT force it into lock-step with a Pl-F. Each charge is a single point of power and can be combined as allowed. With a max of two, three, or four, depending on what is later decided. And it will never exceed four as we know, based on the rules, that five points of power is too much.

The reason for decoupling with the Pl-F is because it *has* to be distanced from the Pl-F or it flat out cannot exist. If it is just a Pl-F that is fired as a carronade, that is not permitted and is already stated in the rules. Therefore we need to make sure that a fighter-based carronade has at least some separation from the ship-based carronade. And this is completely reasonable. For example, both the fighter-based fusion beam and the fighter-based ion weapon work differently than the corresponding ship-based weapon. So, we know it can work differently. But, since we know the ship-based weapon literally cannot work on fighters, we also know that the fighter-based carronade *must* work differently. Ergo, the direction I am pushing it in.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, November 07, 2023 - 06:14 pm: Edit

For what (little) it's worth, I would consider a closer point of comparison to be the Trobrin implosion bolt and implosion torpedo.

Unlike "modern" Alpha Octant plasma, which include bolt (and, in some cases, carronade) firing options in the same launcher, the Trobrin Empire was obliged to branch their heavy direct-fire and seeking weapon technologies onto two separate development tracks. As in, the implosion bolt has no seeking mode, while their various types of implosion torpedo have no direct-fire modes.

However, the two types of weapon still possess certain parallels.

Both are three-turn arming weapons: indeed, the implosion bolt has the same 1+2+3 arming cycle as the medium implosion torpedo. (Although, unlike the implosion torpedo, the implosion bolt has an accelerated arming option. However, as this requires reserve power to fire the weapon at the impulse of arming, it would not be a factor for fighter-mounted implosion bolts.)

And when installed on fighters, both implosion bolt and implosion torpedo warheads require two deck crew actions to arm.

While the fighter-mounted implosion bolt is a powerful weapon, the Trobrin use them only sparingly in a given size-1 fighter squadron. A typical 11-strong Trobrin squadron has seven superiority fighters (or six superiority fighters and one EW fighter from Y197 onwards), two implosion bolt fighters, and two implosion torpedo fighters.

-----

Again for what (little) it's worth, I would see the same dynamic as being viable for a fighter-mounted PLC - so long as it was designed to function as a direct-fire weapon only from the outset.

That said, if allowing heavy fighters and bombers a "full" (5-point) warhead was a problem, perhaps the 2-point limit I proposed for size-1 fighters could be applied across the board? That, in and of itself, would further distinguish distinguish the PLC from a fighter-mounted plasma-F, if such a distinction was deemed necessary.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, November 07, 2023 - 06:25 pm: Edit

Again, I don't know whether it is necessary to limit the power input to 2 points or if it can go to 3 or 4.

So, making a charge take a single point of power and the ability to hold four charges in the freezer keeps things simple and works regardless of whatever the limit will be. I don't see the need to impose additional restrictions on how the power can be applied, but I am more than willing to be wrong about that.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 - 04:09 pm: Edit

I see one question which has not been addressed. Will the freezer boxes on the carriers be able to load for both weapons, carronade and torpedoes, or will the carrier need to be converted to the type of freezer box to match the fighters? If the freezer boxes are universal, maybe after an upgrade, then this idea may have some merit. However, if the freezer boxes were able to charge for only a single type of weapon, this would be a logistical weakness as the different carriers would have to be supplied with the correct fighters and deployed to the correct battlegrounds to be effective. This might force the Gorns to make an either/or decision as to which type of weapon to deploy on their fighters.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, April 25, 2024 - 05:22 pm: Edit

They would have to be separate.

Again, there is a hard-and-fast rule that says "no bolting an F from a fighter". If the freezer box is the same, it allows bleeding into that space and it is important to keep them totally separate.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the point of the weapon was to be a fighter-based version of the "carronade-only" weapon. If an empire is using a carronade-only weapon, then they are not using seeking plasma at all. So, for example, the one empire not using this will be the Gorn.

TL;DR: These freezer boxes are totally different from Pl-F freezer boxes. Never the twain shall meet.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, April 27, 2024 - 01:09 pm: Edit

Mike, I checked the years that carronades and Gorn fighters entered service, and the timeline works.

Is the "never the twain shall meet" limited to the carriers, or is it extended to be fleet wide or empire wide? I understand that this is limited to fighter borne weapons and doesn't affect any ships' weaponry. Otherwise, you're suggesting that the empire using this never deployed Plasma-Fs at all.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, April 27, 2024 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Mike, according to the technology timeline, the Plasma-F with freezer boxes was available to the Gorns in Y120.

There's no way to avoid Gorn ship borne Plasma-Fs. Your "never the twain shall meet" needs either more thought or more clarification.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, April 27, 2024 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Again using the Trobrin as a point of comparison: I would not be opposed to a would-be (simulator?) empire using both seeking plasma and plasma carronade fighters at the same time - so long as the means of arming and loading each are kept separate from one another.

On Trobrin carrier SSDs, the boxes for their implosion bolt fighter bays use "+" symbols, while their implosion torpedo fighter bay boxes use "^" symbols instead. Presumably a similar split could be shown on a carrier with a "mixed" squadron here.

Or rather, since the "+" symbol is already used for size-1 fighters armed with type-F seeking plasma in the Alpha Octant, perhaps the "^" symbol can be assigned to carronade fighters? So the reverse of the Trobrin usage, then.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, May 02, 2024 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Gary, that qualifies as an example of "never the twain shall meet" on an individual carrier. The freezer boxes are not interchangeable.

Without rereading all of the posts above, I would then like to know how the two types of fighters would be differentiated by the enemy as to which type they are. The Romulans may want to target carronade fighters to protect their cloaked ships, and other empires may want to target Plasma-F fighters with their greater damage output at shorter range and their greater range for doing damage. Both of those are difficult if we have to wait until the fighters fire their weapons, and then it's too late.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, May 02, 2024 - 05:12 pm: Edit

John, my point is that the Gorn would not bother using this. It gains them nothing and directly violates their carrier/fighter deployment. The point isn't that they couldn't do this; it is that they wouldn't do this. I doesn't help them and makes no sense for them.

The point of finding out if this is possible is for the use by another empire, not the Gorn. (Probably a simulator empire.)

And, again, from a proposal point of order, if you are skirting something that is "just not possible", the last thing you should ever do is link the mutually incompatible systems.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, May 03, 2024 - 07:03 pm: Edit

To once again turn to the Trobrin as a point of comparison: the frames used for their successive iterations of bolt and torpedo fighters run on parallel development tracks. No doubt their numerous enemies have ample opportunity to gain experience, in terms of acquiring the Tactical Intelligence needed to tell one type of fighter from the other.

With this in mind, any (simulator?) empire deploying both carronade and seeking plasma fighters would oblige their opponents to follow the same Tactical Intelligence guidelines under (D17.4), in order to tell for sure which type of enemy attack shuttle they need to prioritize over the other(s).

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, May 03, 2024 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Mike, I could debate you as to whether the Gorns would use this or not. The carronade has its advantages against cloaked ships. This debate would be for entertainment purposes only, and I'm not wanting to do so.

All I've been doing is asking logical questions based on what I have read, and looking up relevant data to see if and how it might fit. I'm not advocating for or against this idea at all.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, May 05, 2024 - 02:05 pm: Edit

And I've tried to answer as clearly as I can, too. Any freezer for this system works independently and separately from a Pl-F freezer. The form the charge has to take to be loaded into the fighter launch system is totally different and incompatible.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, May 06, 2024 - 10:52 am: Edit

This came out of nowhere for me, but what about a fighter, instead of carrying a single standard Plasma-F torpedo, is armed with TWO Carronades?

As a point of comparison, the Carnivrons have a fighter armed with two Disruptor Cannons. The damage output from these weapons can be considered comparable to a fully armed Carronade (I think; please feel free to correct me) and the fighters using them have only their phasers and a pair of RALADs backing them up.

The thought of any of the Plasma-F armed assault fighters (G-10, etcetera) replacing their standard Plasma-F with two Carronades seems comparable, especially since the Plasma-K, their "Heavy Back-Up Weapon" has been compared to anti-drones, it "Feels" like an equivalent.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, May 06, 2024 - 03:51 pm: Edit

I hadn't worked through what the fighter would end up looking like. It all depends on how much power can be applied to a single carronade charge. Obviously, you can't apply the full five points of power, as firing that would immolate the fighter. But, it could be either one or two points. (Or the option for either, honestly.) In that case, you could argue it is more of a fair comparison to a Pl-D than a Pl-F, so putting two on a fighter wouldn't be out of line.

Honestly, what would be really cool is a fighter with two carronades and two Ph-3s. Each of the carronades can hold two points of power which can be expended as two single-point charges or a a single two-point charge. Regardless of how it is fired, it can only fire once per turn. (So, if fired as two single-point charges, the two firings happen on different turns.) That'd be a flexible, though still limited, direct-fire plasma-based fighter that isn't "bolting plasmas".

I still don't think the Gorns are interested in these. But, in isolation, they should be reasonable.

Oh, and as a general rule, don't use the Carnivon fighters as the basis for an argument for why your fighter is OK. It isn't going to help.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 06, 2024 - 09:38 pm: Edit

For what (little) it's worth, I would prefer that a carronade fighter keep the same engineering limitations as a seeking plasma-F fighter, in terms of how many (or rather, how few) can be installed at once.

That said, to think things over once again, I would not be opposed to allowing a PLC on a size-1 fighter to be given a "full" five-point charge - so long as it follows the same 1+1+3 arming rate as used for a seeking plasma-F. As in, you can launch the fighter with a one-, two-, or five-point carronade warhead after the first, second, or third turn of arming respectively.

This would once again be consistent with Trobrin implosion bolt and torpedo fighter use, yet still offer a greater degree of flexibility for the carronade fighter, in that it would be able to "dial in" the amount of charge it would need based on the kind of target it would be expected to fire at.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, May 07, 2024 - 08:30 am: Edit

I am against the five point charge because that would be "bolting a plasma from a fighter". That is the best way to make sure the idea is killed instantly, irrespective of what is done in Omega.

Also, there is no need for consistency in the fighter weapon. Both the ion fighter weapon and fusion fighter weapon are different from their ship-based versions. Having a carronade that is limited to one or two points of charge keeps the link with the ship carronade, but scales the power down to something that a fighter can handle.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, May 07, 2024 - 12:34 pm: Edit

To respond to an earlier post: size-1 Carnivon disruptor cannon fighters have one such weapon each: the Hyena-1 can carry a single shot for it, whereas the Hyena-2 and Hyena-3 each carry two shots instead.

Well, technically, the freezer for all three fighter types can hold two charges: in the case of the Hyena-1, only one charge can be loaded on the fighter at a time; while on the latter models, both charges can be loaded at once, though these fighters can only fire one of them in a given turn.

-----

In terms of a carronade fighter, how about setting up a similar freezer system?

As in: say that the freezer on the carrier can be loaded for two carronade shots at once, similar to what is the case for the disruptor cannon. But that each shot has to be loaded as either a one-point shot in a single turn, or as a two-point (or rather, a 1+1 shot) over two turns.

To parallel the Hyena-1, then say that the earliest iteration of carronade fighter can only install one of these shots at a time. But, a more advanced carronade fighter design can get both shots loaded in at once - but can still only fire one shot per turn.

I would sooner see that as a way to account for the engineering limitations involved, rather than trying to install two carronades onto a single size-1 fighter frame.

-----

EDIT: Also, since the Carnivons' size-2 Dingo heavy fighters can install two disruptor cannons (each with two shots; they can fire both cannons in the same turn, but again with only one shot per cannon per turn), this would make it easier to create a would-be heavy carronade fighter that followed the same broad template.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, May 07, 2024 - 03:58 pm: Edit

The Hyena fighters are photon fighter equivalents. I view these fighters as Stinger or whatever Vudar fighters are called. These would be lower key than photon, disruptor cannon, or full-on Pl-F fighters.

And, again, the Carnivon fighters can't really be used as comparisons for anything. Just assume they exist in a design vacuum that affects nothing else.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, May 09, 2024 - 06:45 pm: Edit

If ADB deem it acceptable for a size-1 fighter to install two carronades at once, fair enough.

But if they do not, I would consider two charges for a single carronade to be a viable alternative.

Either way, I hope there is indeed some way of permitting a carronade-armed fighter to exist - or, at least, for it to be possible from an engineering perspective.

-----

On another, somewhat related side note:

Of the size-1 superiority fighters used by the "lost empire" Paravians in Module C6, the earliest of these (the Thunderfinch) had only one quantum wave torpedo, though the ready rack on the carrier could hold two charges.

The next iteration (the Thunderquail) had two QWTs, but could only launch one per turn.

The succeeding Thunderraven could launch both QWTs in the same turn, but only at the same target.

Whereas the "final" Thundercrane can launch both QWTs in the same impulse, at the same or different targets.

-----

If ADB permit fighter-mounted carronades to be treated as a "lower key" heavy weapon, then perhaps a similar design evolution could be seen in the fighters created to fire them?

As in, a "Carronade-1" fighter has only one single-shot carronade mount, but the freezer on the carrier can hold two shots' worth; a "Carronade-2" model gets both single-shot carronade mounts, but can only fire one of them per turn; a "Carronade-3" can fire both at once, but only at the same target; while a "Carronade-4" fighter gets to fire them both at once, at the same or different targets.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, May 09, 2024 - 09:19 pm: Edit

Sure, having multiple levels of fighter development like that works, and I am fine with it. That's likely how it would end up developing.