Purely Drone and Phaser Cruiser
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Ships:
R05: KZINTI PROPOSALS:
Purely Drone and Phaser Cruiser
While modern Kzinti make use of Disruptors, back in the early days, the W-era and Y-era, the Kzinti did not. While it is true that they do have variants that replace the disruptors with drones or phasers, those variants are meant as fire support, escort, or specialist drone bombardment vessels.
I recently was enjoying a re-read of the Y-era modules and had the screwball though (as if I have any other kind 
) of what a Kzinti WCA might end up like if it were upgraded the way the Federation upgraded their WCL to GW era CL. Part of this was inspired by the fact that the same hull form is used in the modern (GW era) Kzinti Tug, so despite the massive redo of the fleet to the new aesthetic, the hull form, and (reasonably, IMO) potentially one of the shipyards responsible for the hull almost needs to have been kept open.
The ship that I ended up with in my twisted mind had the engines upgraded to fourteen boxes each, just like what the Tug has, but does NOT have the disruptors at their fronts. Instead, I've imagined there being four drone racks; two on each engine.
Again, working from the (R5.12) TGT, I've imagined the Type-D drone racks on the engine pylons each being replaced with a Ph-1 (LS/RS arcs) and a single, more conventional drone rack.
These ships are armed with six drone racks, four type-B and two type-C, three Phaser-1s, ten Phaser-3s, and the ADD rack.
This is something I imagined if the Patriarch, early on in the Klingon assault when things weren't going well, chose to order Tugs currently under construction to be modified for use as emergency cruisers.
On the other hand, my personal, preferred arcs and what-not was something pretty different, but would likely violate too many rules for acceptable proposals.
Still, here's what my personal preference would be.
Swap out the Ph-1 and two Ph-3 on FA arc with two Ph-1 on FA arc, replace the Disruptors with Phaser-1s on FA+L/R arcs, give the engines a refit to boost them from fourteen to fifteen boxes (but NOT an automatic refit), reduce the cargo boxes by half (two cargo in each location), add two Ph-1 on 360 degree mounts (THIS is what I'm expecting to be the proposal killer), reduce the RA+L/R Ph-3 by half, and exchange the Type-D drone racks for six Type-A drone racks (that can be refitted to four Type-B and two Type-C drone racks), and make the ship unable to carry/operate pods.
A possible "History" for this ship class is that one shipyard producing cruisers back in the W-era, possibly out in the coreward area, continued to do so, even though the disruptorless ships failed more dramatically in the Four Powers War era. Perhaps they were of use against monsters (or the rare pirate?) in the coreward area as Kzinti scientists worked on improving drone technology.
Once the Speed-20 (to say nothing of the Speed-32) drones started entering service, these ships started becoming more competitive again.
Anyhootch, this is the idea for a cruiser using pure Drone and Phasers. Undoubtedly it'll be pretty easy to do other ships (Frigates, Dreadnoughts, and what-not). What do y'all think of it? Would you enjoy flying a hefty drone ship with no heavy weapons?
See the CAM in Captain's Log 50, page 126.
Did that, Starsabre, and it's one dang good ship; better balanced than what I blathered on (and on and on ) about with this proposal. IMO, it looks like a darned good rival for the CS in potential Kzinti Civil Wars in campaigns for a lead-up to the General War.
The one glaring weakness (compared to its potential CS rival) is the potential lack of omnidirectional Ph-1 coverage (namely around its RX). Do you have any plans around a refit to address that?
Getting back to what I proposed earlier, the idea behind this thread is a Disruptor free vessel, and your CAM does still have them. As such, it is actually pretty different from what I suggested. Mind you, I do still like it, but it isn't what I wanted to ask the community about.
OK, so you're looking for a GW-era ship based on the WCA. Gotcha.
The biggest problem you're gonna face is that the only ship like that in the GW-era are the tugs. And those are incredibly important. Any combat ship made will fundamentally replace a tug in production. Considering that most of the time everyone is trying to replace cruisers with more tugs, this is probably a no-go. The tugs are just flat out more important and critical to the Kzintis, even when reduced to just their capitol.
The second problem is that the Kzintis already have a solution to get their tugs into combat. It's the same solution all of the other empires used: battle pods. Rather than make a combat ship that can't work as a tug when not required to fight, they are much more likely to just slap one or two combat pods onto the tug and call it a day.
And, using that approach, don't the Kzinti have drone bombardment pods? If so, wouldn't that get you most of the way you want to go?
But I don't see the Kzinti producing a ship that is demonstrably worse than the CS/CA/BC that also costs them the production of a tug. If the producer of the tugs wasn't making tugs, but just worse cruisers, I could possibly see a pity contract or unique-ish ships that had a competition with the CS/CA/BC and lost. But since such would cost production of tugs, I don't really see it happening.
Sorry.
Edit: Let me put this in a more positive way: If you want to see such a ship, you need to show how such a ship does not cost the production of a tug (most important point) and how a handful of examples (even just one) would have been built, all without seriously affecting the overall known Kzinti history. Not an easy path, but also not necessarily impossible.
Good criticisms, Mike.
Between us, I've had a hefty handfuls of ideas for how this project might have come into being, but the more I though about each of them, the worse they all became.
At this point, the only thing I have that's even close to workable MIGHT be something for C4R; a Kzinti professor, concerned that new cadets may have gotten too reliant on disruptors (and to his mind, thinking like Klingons) MAY have come up with this design (or a few others along similar lines) for use in the simulators.
(Of course, with my certain, shall we say, "Lack of Sanity," my alleged mind went to thoughts of a Kzinti professor named, "Cat who Drones," who is a Kzinti take on Ben Stein...)
WHAAANNG!!!
Okay, that frying pan knocked some sense into me. I'll go back to the core/essentials of the proposition.
As stated earlier, this proposal is meant as a concept for a ship WITHOUT heavy weapons; just phasers and drones. We do have a race that just uses phasers (the Borak), two different, full races that use Disruptors and Drones, and even a race that mixes drones with Plasma Torpedoes (Peladine). What we DON'T have in universe, at least not at the GW-Tech level, is someone who uses drones as a primary heavy weapon. This proposal is meant to open up a door for players who like that concept.
Are any of y'all interested in flying such a ship?
Jeff, perhaps you need to be whanged one more time.
The premier drone using Empire is Kzinti.
After so many years (measured in decades for simplicity sake…) you are not likely to prevail in changing Star Fleet Universe History.
More importantly, you have three problems that you failed to address:
1. Drones are seeking weapons. Earlier periods s (pre General War eras) drones are also slow (speed 8 hexes per turn.) or they are moderate (speed 12 hexes per turn, with less endurance (fewer turns of powered movement.). This makes drone far less useful, and with out a heavy weapon (such as Photons, Disrupters or Plasma torpedoes) your proposed phaser/drone ship is at a clear tactical disadvantage verses virtually all published early and middle years ship types.
2. Drones create a modified tactical situation at all tech eras, Petrick has repeatedly pointed out the the game play is different in SFBs between games with drones as opposed to games without drones.
This can be summarized as:
A. Drones are often targeted by opponents to prevent said drones from detonating agains ships and non ship units (shuttles, other drones mines etc.). This is quantified in the BPV of drone using ships. In plain english, drones soak up phaser fire that otherwise would be targeted on Kzinti ships.
B. Drones, by virtue of movement tend to create a pseudo terrain. Just means that opposing players move thier ships in such a way as to avoid entering the same hex as enemy drones. Used skillfully, a drone using player may (I emphasize, MAY) affect the tempo of a battle by use of drones. Depends on the scenario goals, if escaping off a map edge, drones could force a longer detour, thus requiring more movement hexes or even force a retreat from the intended exit hex.
C. Lack of a direct fire weapons capacity. Use of transporter bombs, NSM, tractors, (and for specific empires) systems that do not play well with drones. This would include (but not a exhaustive list) Tholion Web, Staisis fields, lyran expanding spheres etc. these things (and others not listed) all obstacles to drones in SFBs games.
One other point is that drones can slow down a game, depends on how many drones are in play during the game, but it is known that multiple drone stacks, extended waves of drones or dispersed launches of drones (many individual drones not launched in to a stack or a wave) requires more time to play than a battle without drones. (Some of the above points can relate to plasma torpedos, but in general, plasmas have far less endurance than drones so they are not on the game map for as long as drones.)
Given these issues, as well as the points in the above archive, such a proposal may not be very popular.
I suppose it might be an option for there to be a drone variant of the aforementioned CAM from CL50.
Also, historically-speaking, it is possible to field an Orion Pirate, WYN Auxiliary, and/or WYN-Orion force with only phasers and drone racks in their respective option mounts. Perhaps with a WYN "fish ship" drone variant or two mixed in for good measure.
Beyond this, I don't think there is room in the Alpha Octant for a "new" drone-using empire to historically exist.
That said, just as the Peladine are technically a simulator fleet by the onset of the General War, there is no reason why, say, a Barbarian force cannot be created with a drone-heavy weapon suite. For that matter, one could also consider a new "friend of the Frax" to be added with that kind of weapon suite in mind.
And speaking of the simulators: if one wanted to postulate on what the Zosman Marauders would have looked like had they arrived in Alpha instead of in Omega, the "update" file in Captain's Log #52 suggests a range of options - and restrictions - they would operate under in such simulator exercises.
-----
All that said, I personally think that drones are already far too prevalent across the Alpha Octant as it stands.
Further, though I have no issue with drone-like weapons such as tachyon missiles or Juggernaut Shriek missiles - and would not deny any would-be Carnivons of the Sargasso Storm Zone the use of Module C6-esque death bolts - I would not be in any sort of hurry for an historical empire or faction in a non-Alpha setting to be given Alpha-type drones either.
In any case, what drones and most other drone-like seeking weapons have in common is that, sooner or later, they run out of ammunition - unlike, say, a plasma torpedo or a quantum wave torpedo, which can be re-armed so long as there is enough power to do so.
Which is one thing if a given faction intends not to stick around too long at a given place of battle (such as an Orion or Zosman raiding force), or is adjacent to its source of replacement munitions (such as inside the WYN Cluster). For a "true" star empire seeking to occupy a territorial holding across open space, relying too heavily on drones (and drone-alikes) might be more of an issue - which is perhaps one reason why the Kzintis eventually adopted disruptors to use alongside their drone racks.
But of course, one reason why simulator empires like the Barbarians exist is to enable such concepts to be tested in earnest, so...
Quote:For that matter, one could also consider a new "friend of the Frax" to be added with that kind of weapon suite in mind.
I mean, I guess ... The whole point of the "friends of the Frax" is to put familiar weapons in new arrangements. If you do that with drones you get, uh, drones. It would just be a drone ship with nothing new added. At that point just add a couple drone-only ships directly to the Frax navy (if they don't already exist) and call it a day.
On the other hand, doing a drone-only implementation of the Barbarians (no changes; just option mount choices). It is perfectly in line with their whole charter.
Another frying pan to the head? Please don't let my mother-in-law hear about that; she'd be too enthusiastic about it*...
(* After all, she is the one who tried to put a tourniquet around my neck when I cut myself shaving, and when I had a sinus infection, she repeatedly called the doctor, suggesting amputation is the best way to arrest infections.)
(* In fact, the only thing she EVER said to me that was in any way positive was when she encouraged me to give 100%...)
(BTW: she did so when I was donating blood... )
Okay, okay...
Getting back to the proposal.
I recognize that drones aren't a strong weapon; slow drones doubly so. As I've stated repeatedly, this proposal is meant just for those players who are interested in the challenge of flying drones as practically their only main weapon.
Sure, someone wanting to try this idea out can fly one of the regular Kzinti ships and just not arm the disruptors, all fine and good. In some ways, that's probably a better way than trying to provide the history of improbable designs. There are two things, though.
First is the expectations of your opponent. Certainly, if I were flying against someone planning on not using their disruptors at all, I'd fly it very differently than I would against someone planning on using their whole weapon suite.
Second is, as I presented in the original proposals, these particular ships, the CA version of the concept, has two additional Type-B Drone Racks over the classic Kzinti BC. Yes, even MORE drones.
Are drones so unpopular that the idea shouldn't be considered? I respectfully disagree. I believe that there is likely a small percentage of the fanbase of the SFU out there who would relish the challenge of fighting primarily with drones and without the more traditional heavy weapons (normally disruptors).
I could be wrong, but it is still what I believe.
I could sort of see this...
Late in the General War, when fast drones were finally deadly, the Kzinti Design Office (DEWCLAW: Design-Engineering-Weapons Committee Lacking Any Wisdom) dusted off the old idea of taking some stored ancient cruiser hulls and recycling them as drone platforms. They lacked the power to operate as gunships (disruptor-armed ships) and the idea of making them all-drone platforms had been considered many times but slow/medium drones were not effective enough. With fast drones, an old Y-cruiser could be sent to war with disruptors replaced by drone racks. Even with the D-racks that tugs normally operated plus B-racks in the disruptor positions.
Jeff,
I played in a scenario at GenCon 2003 (Jeff Laikind sponsor?). I don't remember the scenario name or number. There was a Kzinti BATS (I think) that was the center of attention. One Orion force showed up (having a choice of sabotage options) for a raid, but another Orion force, Klingons, and Feds also showed up along with a Kzinti BCH for base reinforcement. Everyone got victory points vs one or more opponents.
I played the first Orion force, which had a PFT and a PF flotilla (and maybe something else small). I loaded all option mounts with drone racks. Then used the PFs to take turns dive bombing the base, approaching under 12 ECM + EM until point blank launch point for type IV drones. Sure I lost a couple of PFs before the base ran out of firepower, but I had a great time.
DEWCLAW: "...Committee Lacking Any Wisdom..."
(Okay, that says enough... )
Trying.to.wrap.my.head. In this idea…
Ancient cruiser hulls.
If you absolutely had to smother a target under massive drone waves, you could do worse than have three such drone chuckers as part of a base assault group.
They wouldn’t need to close the range, just chuck out scads of Type IFATG drones from range 95 hexes. At speed 32 hexes per turn, it would arrive at the target hex just before running out of fuel and going inert.
Three such ships, and throwing in the occasional scatter pack (also armed with IF ATG drones) would swamp most bases drone defenses.
Team with an actual attack force willing to close the range, the base defenses will be challenged to say the least.
Still, its a one trick pony.
How will you fix the rock, paper, scissors issue?
How about this:
Just make a TGD. Take the TGC, replace the four disruptors with four B-racks and call it a day.
That gets you the drone/phaser ship you want, but it is still a tug. Go nuts!
Waste of a real tug, though…
!
If I am understanding just what SVC is saying, he is not talking about a modern Heavy Cruiser variant (which is what a TGC is.)
An ancient cruiser hull should be a CL (on a par with a Federation Old Style light cruiser, for a comparable unit.)
I think I would like to see a SSD, but cramming everything into the hull that SVC talked about might be tight fit.
Hey, somebody had better check on Petrick’s meds.
Ripping out the existing phasers and type A drone racks to be replaced by two type D racks and two or four type B racks in a CL hull that was never meant to have that many. Look, 4 Type A drone racks would provide 4 SSD boxes. Type D racks have what ? 3 SSD boxes each. That means Petrick will have to delete at least two more boxes. Adding two (or four) type B drone racks also means replacing that number of other SSD boxes.
The raw numbers alone translate to either eight SSD boxes (4 type A drone boxes and at minimum two phaser SSD boxes, assuming the new weapons are only 2xtype D drone launchers (3 boxes each) plus 2 type B drone boxes.
Or ten SSD boxes (assumes four type B drones boxes instead of the two posited in the paragraph above.)
I forget how many weapons boxes a kzinti CL has, but making room for all those drone racks may not be easy.
It is conceivable that Jeff Anderson’s phaser batteries could be reduced to just two phaser 3 point defense phasers.
I pity the fellow that waltzes in to remind Petrick, that he still has to do the Crawford boxes!