David Slatter:

You are trying to go places that we just do not want to go.

The Romulans are the only race that gets to split a PF flotilla between two units (Chickenhawk PFTs), and they accomplish that at the expense of not being able to split the two tender ships.

As a general concept, it takes some time to configure a Scout PF to provide support to a given PF, and some time to configure that Scout PF to provide support to a given tender, and some time to configure that tender to give support to a given PF. All of this is why a given Scout PF can support itself and five other PFs with its EW, and is able to lend support to its PFT, and why a PFT can lend support to all of its PFs. See rules (K1.75) and (K2.52).

Consequently, if you want a PF flotilla able to make full use of the EW capabilities, it has to operate from one tender (Chickenhawks being the ONLY exception). The whole flotilla. You cannot have a DN arrive with three Scout PFs and then organize the casual PFs that happen to be present into three flotillas. There are no provisions for a PF to be added to an existing flotilla (and begin receiving the EW benefits) during a scenario. This can only be done between scenarios of a campaign (either reorganizing existing flotillas, perhaps by assigning the remaining PFs of one flotilla to two others, or integrating replacements PFs into exising flotillas, or using replacement PFs to create an entirely new flotilla).

Further, under the provisions of (K0.325) you cannot have a PFT (even a DNPFT) wandering around with a flotilla of three PFLs and three PFSs waiting for an opportunity to link up with other PFs to create full flotillas at a battle site.

And there is little reason to have more than six PFs since under the provisions of (K0.33) any PFs above the magic number of six, even if defined as part of Flotilla X, cannot receive the EW benefits of the flotilla.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 08:25 am: Edit

steve

While I understand that my proposal is dead, I think you may have misunderstood me.

The DNPFT -if we call it that- as I proposed, always has 2 squadrons attached to it. These squadrons are as attached to it as the two squadrons of the Zin-SSCS. However, it simply does not have the mech-links to mount all 12 PFs like the SSCS does, so relies on secondary ships or escorts to simply carry the PFs. For battle, operational, repair, and EW purposes, the DNPFT is the mothership for BOTH squadrons, just like a CVA is the mothership for two fighter squadrons. If the PFs on the secondary ships / escorts do not use the DNs mothership capabilities, they are simply casual PFs that cannot be lent EW as a group.

Seeing as an SCS is virtually never seen without escorts, I saw no reason why a 2-squadron DNPFT would also never be seen without escorts, so it seemed reasonable to be to allow the escorts to carry some of the PF's that the DN could not. Again, these PFs that the escorts carried would be specifically part of the 2 squadrons that are allocated to the DNPFT, and thus the whole make up 2 integrated squadrons, not 6 PFs on the DN with another 6 random PFs. As the escorts would nearly always be stationed with the DNPFT, the whole could train as the integrated unit required to gain the proper PF flotilla status for both squadrons.

I think maybe I confused the issue by commenting that the ecorts could have limited PF repair similar to ready racks on carrier escorts.

Now while I still understand that you do not wish this unit to happen, I can at least say that I have answered all of your concerns above. This is a somewhat different concept.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 10:27 am: Edit

David Slatter:

Sorry, but again the ONLY case of a PF Flotilla, or a fighter squadron, operating on two separate units is the Romulan Hawk Carrier, and Chickenhawk PFT.

If you could do what you are proposing, the Hydrans would be operating combined squadrons of Stingers. There would be no reason that any given group of three ships with six mech links could not claim to be carrying an operational PF flotilla in all respects.

Note that there is no case where a carrier operates with some fighters on the carrier, and other fighters on the escorts.

Once more, you are going some place we do not seem to want to go (does not mean that you will not convince SVC to go there).

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 12:13 am: Edit

Petrick said:

>Chickenhawks being the ONLY exception


You might want to look at (SH196.0) STRIKE FORCE.

The LDR not only split a PF flotilla between a HDW-PFT and a non-PFT.

Ther split a fighter squadron as well.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 12:38 am: Edit

Trent>

You might want to look at (SH196.46), which specifically says that this group was an exception to must rules and could operate because the LDRcould concentrate the ships and command to maintain its unique operations [(R14.31) and (R14.33) also indicate the unique nature of this squadron].

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 04:31 am: Edit

Umm. Alex

Isn't that what you are doing if you always keep a group intact - concentrating the ships and command necessary to do these kind of operations. I did specify that such an amalganeted group as I proposed had to train, and be kept together. I mean, isn't this the case for every CVA group?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 10:33 am: Edit

David Slatter:

Sorry, but the rule Alex cited says it all.

(SH196.46) OPERATIONS: This squadron represents an exception to several normal rules, in that the fighter squadron and PF flotilla are divided between two ships. This was almost never done in the Starfleet Universe, but this short-lived squadron was a totally integrated unit, AND IN THE SMALL LDR FLEET THERE WAS NO OTHER THEATER THAT MIGHT DEMAND THE BREAKUP OF THE FORCE TO TRANSFER SHIPS (capitalization to add emphasis).

Federation and Empire has pretty much established that carrier groups are constantly being broken up to replace lost escorts, or to have the escorts of one carrier assigned to another carrier so that the second carrier will be a full strength group. This establishes (unlike the earlier editions of Starfleet Battles that tended to create an impression that carrier groups once formed lived and died together) that keeping a CVA and its escorts together is not something you can count on.

There are a lot of aspects of "normal operations" that are assumed, but not seen, in SFB. A CVA carrier group might have the CVA go into the dockyard for a major overhaul (avoiding term "refit" here because it has another meaning). Being a larger unit, it takes longer to overhaul, and your dedicated corps of staff officers will assign its escorts to other carriers, while arranging for new escorts to be available when the CVA comes back out of overhaul. The LDR can get around this due to the reasons noted in the Special Scenario Rules of that scenario.

Note also that the force existed for less than a year. The Ship Description of the HDW notes that one of its type was used to create the force in Y183, the same year the force was attacked and destroyed by the Andromedans, and good indication that ultimately even the LDR found the concept unworkable as there is no indication that they ever attempted the experiment again since the HDWs were converted to DWXs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 12:23 pm: Edit

Besides, using special scenario rules to support a change to the primary rules set doesn't fly and the rules clearly present that.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 05:30 pm: Edit

I'd also imagine that the LDR sunk extra money and technolgy into having the control computers for these specific ships upgraded and tweaked to allow just those kinds of operations (part of the total integration). Prob is, those things have to be customized for a specific group of specific ships and it's just not economically feasible to do it for groups that you can't guarrante will stay together (which, as Petrick noted, is most all of them). *waves hands*

By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 09:04 pm: Edit

It might be worth adding this to the auto-reject list since it has come up twice in the last month or so.

By Pat Moore (Phooka) on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 04:39 am: Edit

Ok allthough this will probably be instantly rejected... The auto-reject list does however say "ships".

External ordance rails for staticly based PFs and INTs.

Basically 3 or so spaces of rails 1 1/2 per side on most PFs 2 for INTs. The ordinace carried on the rails would be lost if the unit was to travel at faster than combat speeds (even on the outside of a PF tender) so units so equipped must be based on planets or bases or allowed specifically by scenerios.

Ordinace on rails is ejected/destroyed with each hull hit destroying one rail space.
Ordinace on rails is lost if the unit disengages by acceleration.
Ordinace on rails can only be reloaded in repair capable PF bays or at a planitary base.
Otherwise treted as rail launched ordinace on fighters.
Ordiance on rails counts against the launch rates of the PF/INT.
Ordinace on rails (plasma torps) can be energised by the PF they are mounted on.
Variants could include PFs and INTs that would trade in weapons for more external rail space.

By Pat Moore (Phooka) on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 05:07 am: Edit

In reading back on this thread there was a debate as to whether the lyran PF was good enough, and a specific comparison to the klingon G1. While I haven't specifically played that match-up i have played most the others and I would say the Lyran would win easily.

With PFs you can reach range 10 and get out before reaching range 8 with well timed turns and sideslips. The lyrans should do about 27 points of damage to thier target at that range with both phasers and disruptors. Wich is enough to gut any PF with booster packs. After doing this to one of the standard G1's the lyrans turn and run. If the klingons had overloads then they don't get to shoot and if they have standard loads they don't do enough damage to matter.
The klingon drones are pretty inconsequential unless it's a closed map or the lyrans don't have warp boosters. And with the speed PF's can manage they are still avoidable.
If the klingon force persues them they can all just het at the right moment and trade overloads wich they will win hands down. If the klingons don't give chase they simply repeat the first battle pass a couple of turns later after mopping up the drones.
As I see it the klingons don't stand much of a chance unless it's fast drones, no warp boosters and a closed map. Luck is even less of a factor for the lyrans because they will be rolling twice as many torpedo shots than the klingons.
As to the klingons closing under erratic manuvers they give up a huge advantage in not having drones in flight from the start(also a disadvantage in having the scout guiding drones and/or paying for ATM drones when fighting an inhearently cheeper PF flotilla in the first place). EM is a good idea for the lyrans after thier range 10 attack, even if the klingons got to range 8 if they had any ew shift thier attack would be rendered impotent.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 02:03 pm: Edit

But, more to the point, how would they compare to the Kzinti and Hygran PFs???

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Michael:

Exactly.

Pat:

They would definitely be dealing with fast drones, not medium or slow drones.

By Pat Moore (Phooka) on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Marc: Of course they will be fast drones, but unless it's a closed map fast drones aren't a big concern for any pf playing a hit and run sniper game with warp booster packs. Speed 30 is too easy to maintain. And it's remarkably easy, at high speed, to controll the movement of persuing drones to maximise your defensive phaser fire.

The hydran PFs are actully a pretty equal match for the lyran at ranges 9 and 10. The hellion is a bit better with the hellbore cannon, the harrier is a bit worse but because both of these have 3 phaser 2's it makes up for the harrier's lower range 10 damage. The big differnce is of course the 2 turn arming cycle of the fusion and hellbore. If the hydran trades range 10 shots with they lyran they will initially annhaliate one enemy pf. If the hydrans try to wait for overload ranges then the lyrans should run and repeat, if the hydrans fire at long range then the lyrans should try to get in an overloaded shot from range 8 wich should win the game by destroying 2 more hydrans. All said though it's a much more equal match between either of these and the lyran, than the lyran and the klingon.
An interesting note is that in this match up EW (at range 10) is in favor of the lyrans, the damage potential of the fusion beam is greatly reduced by a one shift (about a 35% loss) and since the hellbore looses the largest % of hit chance dropping from a 7 to hit to a 6. The lyran PF is also tougher and has more power. So I would say the lyran, as long as they avoid overload range on turn when the hydran is ready is an equal match to the hydrans. Of course if they get to range 3 then the lyrans are toast but that's how it works with hydrans anyway. The howler is not a good PF for going after other PFs uless the other PF is being pioleted by an idiot.

The Kzinti standard needle has a bit more power (with phasers armed) to use than the klingon and a phaser 1 instead of 2 phaser 2's. The phaser 1 is the best weapon on any PF, but one of them doesn't stack up to 2 phaser 2's. Basically the needle is weaker than the G1 and should be an easier kill.

I think the complaints about the usefullness of the lyran PF are misdirected when you match PF to PF, where the lyrans fall short would be against shipping and fighters in comparirison to other PFs. Unfortunately because I think I have heard the esg isn't going to be allowed on a PF (even say a range 0, 15 point one wich would be reasonable) there isn't allot you can do to make make new lyran PFs with differnt weapon suits.

I have played the harrier vs the lyrans, (won because the lyrans had overloads when I fired and turned off) and klingon vs the kzinti (won because the G1 is a much better boat).

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 06:11 pm: Edit

Pat:

I think it's more complicated than that.

You can't fire at R10 and turn off before the enemy gets to R8. It isn't possible if the opponent is moving at the same speed - unless you use an HET.

If you plan to turn around and fire, you will have to deal with speed 32 drones, which will close rather quickly once you begin your turn around (and you can only fire what's in arc). Once you fire at the drones, the damage calculation you put forward drastically changes.

Also, have you factored in EW? It doesn't seem like you have.

I don't have much more to say on the subject, other than what was said earlier in the thread.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 10:24 pm: Edit

Pat:

The Klingons have a 2 Disruptor model in the G1B. That version PF is considered weaker than the normal G1. The G1D is probably better than the Lyran PF. At least, I prefer Drone plus ADD instead of APR and 2 Phaser-3s.

By Pat Moore (Phooka) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 02:51 am: Edit

Marc: You attack obliquly, then turn away after fireing. The range stays the same.
Ew just slows things down, with a 1 EW shift the range 10 attack becomes 15 pnts from disruptors
and 3.33 pnts from phasers. 18 pnts will still blow through the forward sheild of any PF and probably damage the hull even with reinforcement. So basically you still have a PF that's a target and if the rest of the squadron try to manuver with it to protect it's sheild it is probably even more handicap than loosing it in the first place. But with the one shift the klingon's counter attack is laughable.

And as for using my phaser 2's to fire at incomming drones, why bother I have a couple of turns with phaser 3's to mop them up as they slowly close. Not to mention the t-bomb and the scout going wild (if it's safe).

Richard: The G1B is sweet, I would say it's on equal footing with the lyran, the lyrans have enough phaser 3's to deal with the drones from a G1B squadron. The extra point of power the lyrans have is really handy when fighting against other direct fire PFs, but in this case it'd all be going to point defense.

The G1D is not good for fighting other PFs cause the speeds are too high. The drones will run out eventually.

The real weakness of the Lyran PF shows up when you add anything else to the mix. Say on a closed map with the tenders present, the klingon fires most the drones at the lyran tender the lyrans now are forced to defend the tender wich they don't do well. Meanwhile the klingons use that fact to manuver to a postion of advantage and start picking off lyran pfs with both the squadron and thier tender. If the lyran tender either runs or weasels or gets blown up the klingons have the advantage. The klingons in effect have a freebie way to threaten the tender where the lyrans have to choose to attack the tender or the squadron. It's that ability to do two things (actually three, since the G1 can attack directly, attack with drones, and do massive point defense) at once that makes the G1 the best overall PF on the western side in my opinion.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 03:31 am: Edit

Pat: My mistake, I meant to have the comparison of G1>G1B>Bobcat-A. The G1D was a keyboarding error on my part.

But the fleet action elements are a key part of the weakness of the Lyran PF. The primary Lyran PF defense against massed seeking weapons is running which is incovenient for the remainder of the Lyran fleet that can't make the same manuevers. Letting enemy PFs do lots of damage to Lyran ships seems unlikely to be a successful strategy.

By Pat Moore (Phooka) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 07:53 am: Edit

Yup I agree but there really isn't a solution to that problem using the technology limits on the lyrans. Perhaps saying that Lyrans allowed the use of drone-type weapons on all thier attrition (and therefore non esg) units would be a solution. An ADD or e-rack (I like e racks, never enough of them in the game) would fix the problem but most likely would not be allowed. So the only solution I think is a PF based esg weapon, low range and low powered of course.

The idea of adding a power pack mentioned before doesn't really help much at all, the PF allready has enough power with booster packs and extra power won't give it more point defense capability. Most likely any extra power would just end up in the sheilds or speed during a overload run.

The light trimaran idea I like, and to make it a real trimaran base it off the interceptor. Add a center hull with 3 hull, the bridge and a fx phaser 2, and 2 center warp. The pontoons get disr, ph-2, apr (left) batt (right), imp, and 2 warp. This actually has fewer internals than the standard and trades in 2 p-3's for a phaser 2. The Ph3's are kinda useless, not enough to be real point defense so they just aught to be dropped. The assult version (wich might not be allowed because too many heavy weapons) would have a disr in the center ph-2 mount. That would at least make the thing truely scary for enemy shipping. Since this trimaran looses an apr you might be able to either convince the need for a power pack, or just put another impulse on the center hull.

As far as what else to put in a module K2, new engine technologies, less unstable than the WBPs. Special PF weapons such as the mini ESG, maybe an assult plasma (50 pnt warhead with a very short range), super heavy drone launch tubes (3 or 4 space drones) one shot, maybe a single shot reloadable on the tender web caster.
Advanced or heavy interceptors, 3 or 4 sheilds (FA, L+LR, and R+RR or single #1 and #4 sheilds with combined #2-3 and #4-5) several of the races interceptors with only a little work are allmost able to take on some of the weaker PFs.
And new and improved PFs, most can be made significantly better with only a minor re-arrangement. Like the gorn (allready arguably the best PF) would be truely scary if you just give it two ph-1s in the bubble with FA+L and FA+R arcs and a 360 PH-1 on the hull.
During the years fighters were around they were constantly being improved it seems odd that PFs only genrally get a shield refit.
I don't think modular PFs for every race is a good idea, most the modular PFs seem to give something up for thier modularity and they kinda suck. To be fair all the other races modular PF's should too.

As for other types of units in a modual K2, howabout a quick to assemble resupply base made out of PF sized moduals that fit together with hollows in their sides making more cargo space when it's completed. A PF tender could deliver such a base and set it up in no time.

Howabout PF support skiffs, each one itself the size of a PF with a little power, cargo, some repair and hull space for the crew. While attached to the skiff the PF's engines would not degrade, but it's movement cost would go up to 1/2. Sort of a PF tender for an individual PF wich would be dropped and hide during a fight.

And finally (for tonight) howabout something designed to be a partrol sqaudron but not designed to be carried on other ships. 4 ships per squadron each one would have a little bit of the support needed for the crew, one would have extra hull, one some cargo space, one some labs, and one command facilities. To make them competitive say they gain ECM from travelling in a squadron, with thier facings and movements identical. And maybe give them ECCM because they are so closely data linked that thier sensers act as one giant sensor spread across vast areas of space.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 11:06 am: Edit

A 50-point assault plasma?

How about something like a megafighter pack that give PFs the ability to hang out in deep space for longer periods of time?

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 11:41 am: Edit

I think Module K refers to the PF Engines as needing to be "flushed" (and some rules describing what the flushing would entail)

I don't know if an "extended range" bellypack will fly.

Now if you suggested a "Extended Range Warp Booster", instead of one that doubles the warp power, doubles the range the PF could go. That might be acceptable.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Pat:

I'm a bit confused. You say on the one hand:

"And as for using my phaser 2's to fire at incomming drones, why bother I have a couple of turns with phaser 3's to mop them up as they slowly close."

and on the other:

"The Ph3's are kinda useless, not enough to be real point defense so they just aught to be dropped."

If you run for a few turns, you lose. This is always an effective tactic against any drone user, provided you are playing on an open map and have nothing to defend and have no fleet or engagement rule. Since most people don't play with such anti-seeking weapon rules, I'm not sure just turning and running away is really worth discussing. At some point you have to engage or people won't play with you, or won't play with seeking weapons.

With regard to an oblique approach, you will always get to range 8 after a range 10 pass. Perhaps not immediately, but it will happen before the opposing force can fire again. You may have to wait until they turn, but it will happen. Run some counters around the board and you will see this - part of it is preventing a "perfect" oblique by the R10ers, part of it involves shifting around when you're behind the turnoff.

With the above said, I agree with your tactics, but I think you are writing off a couple of concerns far too readily.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 12:02 pm: Edit

Creating a PF Tender would be interesting. Make that a PF PF Tender. This unit would have no offensive capability but have the ability to flush a docked PF's engines, refuel, resupply or perform limited repairs. Maybe even store a single spare WBP, or be allowed to detach its WBP and place attach it to a docked PF. It would look something like a leader version of the cargo PF. It would have to have the more expensive self-scrubbing engines for sustained operation. While it would dock with a PF to perform its function this would use the ship-to-ship docking rules. Its maneuver would be limited to that of two ships docked, i.e. it could not travel at warp while docked.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 01:12 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

super heavy drone launch tubes (3 or 4 space drones) one shot

---