It's called a Kzinti MRN-D (?) the one with 2 Drone Racks in each wing/pod.

Launch the H-Drones from the pod, go back to the tender, swap out the pods for a different set (like P-1's) go back to combat.

By Pat Moore (Phooka) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 04:24 pm: Edit

Marc: Run for 3 turns, dones gone, not a single pahser fired. I have outrun fast drones with PFs on a closed map where they ended up 1 hex behind thier target when they cut out. In fact if you have enough speed and watch things (most importantly the impulse chart) you can get them behind you and they simply don't matter then. Done it many times with PFs and occasionally with ships. When I mentioned getting rid of the phaser 3's I was talking about Improving the Lyran for the role it's allready good for, basically a supiriority fighter, what the lyrans need is something like most the other races have, a fighter-bomber. And of course the phaser 2 is still an excellent (allthough power hungry) point defense weapon.

Actually what the drone races should do against something that can out direct fire them is stay slower and try to make the enemy crawl through a couple of waves of drones to get there. Closing on a massed wave of drones is an entierly differnt thing than running from them. I would still tend to run them out though, just delaying the first battle pass.

Oblique attack and turn. No the range stays the same for any part of the fleet along the hexrow youre on or behind it, and decreases for ships in front of you. It's the way the hexes distort "space". If the enemy is spread out enough to make them able to get in overload range with a couple of thier PFs. Big deal it's only a couple. As to getting into the position to obliquely attack, it really isn't hard with a turn mode of 4, speed 25 or 30, and sideslips. And of course the real secret is to run all your PF's in the same hex, well not the scout.

John: The fifty point assult plasma idea is that you can use the space from 2 Plas-F's to install it, since two f's is allready 40 points there has to be a reason to do it hence 50 pnts of damage, I would actually make it shorter ranged than the F. The idea is to have "heavy PF weapons" wich would be PF specific with range limits and the like but take up two spaces on the hull.

TOS: Hey now that would be a cool idea, a support PF to scrub the engines of all the others in the squadron. And maybe have some more amenities for the crews and a little repair. Scrap the belly pack idea this is allot better. Or if a PF can't do it, a PF support frigate with one or two repair capable mech links. A combination of this and a frigate based fast PF resupply ship would be able to service several squadrons much more cheeply than a PF tender. I know there is an issue with such small units having mech links but if you state that they don't normally run around with thier own PFs it should be ok.

Xander: PFs should be the ideal units for "one trick pony" systems. Especially the modular ones, the Kzinti PF is not that great but if I was worried that the squadron 20 hexes from your base might have 10 type H drones it'd get some respect from me.

Another idea that might work would be PFs equipped with fighter type weapons that need to be reloaded by the PFT, but could be charged by the PF. For example the disruptor races would have the option to trade in thier normal disruptors for two or even three one-shot-then-reload fighter disruptor packs. Or mabe some sort of PF chaff pack.

Wish I could figure out how to say things less verbosly, sorry for the long posts.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 04:41 pm: Edit

Pat: 3 turns = 96 hexes. That's disengagement. And even if for some reason you are playing on an uber-super-floating-map with no disengagement regardless of range, your other fleet assets are being eaten while you dilly-dally running away. Running for 3 turns = out of action PFs.

As far as closing on a drone wave being a different story, that's exactly what would happen. You would be meeting a wave at R11, with only some of your phasers in arc because you are making an oblique approach.

"Oblique attack and turn. No the range stays the same for any part of the fleet along the hexrow youre on or behind it, and decreases for ships in front of you. It's the way the hexes distort "space"."

I understand that. That's why you don't allow a perfect oblique. But even then, see below.

"As to getting into the position to obliquely attack, it really isn't hard with a turn mode of 4, speed 25 or 30, and sideslips."

If you turn around, the range closes. You are ignoring that. You seem to be analyzing one battle pass against an opponent who does nothing but react to your movement. That's not how it will work.

You reach R11 and have 12 drones to deal with, if not more. You get off one shot at the enemy PFs with what's left of your firepower, then turn off. Drones get fired again when you begin your turn around, and you get hit with overloads.

It doesn't always happen this way, but you seem to be oversimplifying the issue with the Lyran PF.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 04:52 pm: Edit

Also, specialist drones aren't so easy to run out. Extended range and type-III drones aren't that expensive, nor are swordfish drones that only need to get within a couple of hexes. A plasma-F with a total range of 15 hexes is trivial for a PF to run out, a IIIF with a range of 800 isn't.

By Pat Moore (Phooka) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Andrew: PFs are commonly equipped with extended range drones? Any that don't get run out are going to get shot there won't be that many. And swordfish drones? Well not that effective and costly if I recall correctly.

I mean really if someone was to put a completely specialist drone load on then the cost would skyrocket. The drone equpped PFs are allready paying 4-8 points each for speed increases, add special drones, atg, extended range, and the enemy force will win by economic default. Plus with only 4 drones per rack they will still empty out fast.

Special drones aren't going to make that much of a differnce. Againt the lyrans you'd be better off armoring them so they can't get a phaser-3 kill if they need it. Against the klingons most special drones are a loss because of the massed ADD fire they can produce. I would say the best special warhead drone a PF could carry would be a muti warhead, set to open at range 3. It would triple or quintuple the targets and they are effective against PFs. But again expensive.

The Gorn PF is the best in the game in my opinion, nothing plays the glory zone game better. After it's range ten bolted shot it can run and if you attempt to persue you still have to deal with plasmas. I haven't played with the cannonade and sabot rules, but they seem to allmost written to make the Gorn PF a real terror.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 06:27 pm: Edit

I'll often take type-III frames as part of a fleet drone buy. No so often on independent PFs that don't get the free reloads, but even then they can be handy.

Agree on the Gorn PF, which carries more plasma than the hundred point BDD. Haven't used it with the new plasma tricks yet.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 08:05 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

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 Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 12:17 am: Edit

Thanks Mike.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 01:49 am: Edit

Just for kicks, I jotted this down quickly:

Lyran Trimaran PF

It's based off the Lynx Interceptor, so it isn't any more internals than a 'regular' PF. In fact, it isn't substantially better than the Bobcat at all. The net differences amount to a rear arc ph-3 (for improved drone defense) and splitting the 6 warp across 3 engines instead of 2.

It's easy to see this concept fit into the SFU. The Lyrans developed the Lynx Interceptor first, and as other races developed interceptors and counters to them, they realized the need for a more powerful craft. One project involved making the Lynx a Trimaran design, another design team put together a more powerful warp engine for the PF sized hulls and the resulting catamaran was settled on for the production Bobcat.
------------
Stuff like this would be great in X2. One-ofs and prototypes. The nations at large didn't jump right from heavy fighters/bombers to interceptors in one leap, nor from interceptors to PFs in another. At least, not without a few false starts and interesting prototypes or limited production run craft.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 02:30 am: Edit

Xander: I would suggest going more for a MP style design with the forward disruptors replaced with phaser-2s and the phaser-3 being instead the standard center engine mounted disruptor. I never could understand the Lyrans designing a PF with 2 disruptors when the power curve left the Lyran with challenges arming both before the Booster Pack came into existence.

The extra phaser trimarian would be slightly better for most Lyran uses but probably stymied by some problem with warp engines. (Either the 2 box engines wore out faster than 3 box or the Lyran could make as many 3 box engines as 2 box engines and wanted 50% more PFs, even if each PF was not as good.)

By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 04:33 am: Edit

In reality I think this thing would have something more like the RA P-3 changed to an APR but otherwise left as you have designed it but........

The bottom line is this, The lyrans would never take the time to convert the few surviving Linx's to trimerans by the time Bobcats came into service. In addition to this they would not be able to build these any quicker than regular Bobcats. Interceptors were really not around long enough to get this kind of design theory put into them. So........

The only way I could see these things getting into the game is this: Farstars colony world X gets cut off from supply and has only been suplied with Linx's for local defence. Needing a bigger unit, they turn to this new design for their Trimerans.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Here's an idea I've been playing with: AWE.

The way to get longer strategic range from a PF would be with Auxiliary Warp Engines. AWE are the same physical size as WBP and attach to the PF the same way; you can't mount both at the same time, nor can you mix & match.

While using the AWE, the warp engines are shut down so you do not get any additional power; the AWE supply the same amount of power as the warp engine normally does.

During the first half of the long-range mission, the PF is flying on the AWE at normal speeds. When it gets to where it is going, the AWE are jettisioned and the PF returns home on it's regular warp engines. This allows a PF to double it's strategic range.

If the PF gets into a fight, it can keep the AWE or drop them. If it drops them, ops normal. The decision to drop the AWE is made in the "PFs drop WBP" action.

If it keeps the AWE, movement cost is increased by a fraction (to be decided/argued over) due to the additional mass. Any warp engine hits are applied to the AWE first, then the regular warp engines. Overall, this means that the PF is flying at a reduced speed, but can soak up a few extra warp hits.

The bad news: AWE cost 1.5 times as much as WBPs.

Comments, guys?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 03:32 pm: Edit

...Makes sense. We already have warp engines that samll from things like the Fed-Ex and the Armed Priority Transport.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 06:59 pm: Edit

I regularly take extended range (or type III frames) for my drones in a PF duel. I know I'm going to be using them against speed 30 targets, so I'm going to have to rely on their 2 point speed advantage and maneuverability. I'll need that extra range. I've been known to take a few MW drones to make the situation even more fun (at 4 points of damage each, a single space MW does the same damage--but at a higher BPV cost).

Xander, remember that three engine PFs are actually at a disadvantage in taking damage compared to two engine ones (I did the calculation somewhere on the BBS).

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Didn't think that was true of PFs. With WBPs, that damage can be magnified by up to 6 times using 2 engines. With three engines, only up to 4 points of damage can be applied an engine.

IE., if a PF takes an engine hit with WBPs and rolls a '6', it is down to 6 warp power next turn (one whole engine is gone). With three engines, the PF still has 8 power - one whole engine is gone still, but no more than that, and there are two more.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 10:22 pm: Edit

There's an X1 version of the Fed-Ex. It has 3 cargo, 2 ph-1, 3 boxes on Lwarp and R warp, MC 0.1, and 10 box shields.

Replace one or two of the cargo with a photon torpedo, and there you go.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 01:42 am: Edit

Xander:

With one Engine hit, you're right, but spread around 5-8 damage after hull and you're more likey to have 2 or 3 engines hit. With a 4+ on the roll meaning an engine's dead.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 02:22 am: Edit

John: Any hit that would occur on the Center Warp (die roll of 1) would instead pass to the Left Warp. There are some rare hit distributions that rebound negatively to 3 engine ships, but in most cases, 3 engines are more durable for the complete PF than 2 engines.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Xander and Richard, see my discussion with Loren in the second October 17 archive (the 7:05 pm one).

Unlike ships, PF don't gain durability from the third engine. My statement yesterday was too strong--two engines vs three is really a draw, they're each better in different, but equally likely situations.

Remember that replacing packs is much easier than repairing a box, thus the 50% chance that a single point of warp damage will only affect the pack for a 2 warp PF is significant (versus 33% for the 3 warp PF).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Tos Crawford:

I really like your idea for a "PF PF Tender". How do you see this being deployed? It seems to me the most likely possibilities are as follows.

1. Replaces one standard combat PF in a flotilla. This reduces the flotilla's firepower but allows much better spacekeeping ability and the ability to conduct long range strikes.

2. The PF flotilla remains standard (1 leader, 1 scout, 4 standard combat) and the PFPFT is carried on a mechlink on a separate ship escorting the PFT. This would mean it could not be part of the same flotilla. In particular it could not benefit from loaned EW from the PFS. This would make the PFPFT?? (need a better acronym) vulnerable but this might not be a problem if it hangs back from the fight and repairs/refuels/flushes engines on combat PFs after the strike is over. In this option it would operate a bit like Ficon PFs. And like Ficons there would always be the risk of the PFPFT being attacked while the PF flotilla was away.

3. Oversize PF flotillas. The current rules allow a maximum of 3 attrition unit formations, one of which can be an oversized fighter squadron. (There are a few exceptions such as the Federation "Third Way" in F&E and the Klingon 77th Gunboat Division, which I believe is in both SFB and F&E.) Suppose the rules were changed to allow 3 attrition unit formations, one of which could be either an oversized squadron or an oversized flotilla? Since TPTB seem adamant that except for a VERY few exceptions, PF flotillas can not be divided between two tenders, oversized flotillas would require new tenders. One possibility would be a variant of the SCS that carries no fighters but an oversized PF flotilla. The Gorns already have an SCS in Stellar Shadows Journal that carries 2 PF flotillas. Since it is in SSJ, this would seem to indicate that deploying 12 PFs on one ship hull is impossible, again, with a very few exceptions like the Kzinti SSCS or Seltorian Hive Ship. But perhaps a modified SCS could carry one oversized PF flotilla with 9 PFs, but no fighters. Trading away 12 fighters for only 3 PFs might or might not be a good deal, depending on circumstances. But the oversized flotilla would only count as one unit against the 3 attrtion unit limit, while a normal SCS would count 2 against the limit. And if a PFPFT could support a full oversized flotilla, the ability to launch a long range strike consisting of 1 PFL, 1 PFS, 6 combat PFs and the PFPFT could have powerful strategic advantages, particularly since even megafighters would have a much shorter strike range than this flotilla. Another Oversized PF flotilla tender might be based on the Interdiction Carrier, with 9 PFs replacing the 24 fighters.

In summary, I very much like the PFPFT concept and believe it should be viable under either option 1 or option 2 above. I'm less sure about option 3, however. It would require more rules changes and therefor its overall effects will tend to be less predictable. Part of me would really like to see an oversized PF flotilla, analogous to the oversized fighter squadron, added to the game. But I'm also worried that it might unbalance the game in ways not easily forseen, and therefor would require extensive playtesting before it could be adopted.

By Pat Moore (Phooka) on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 03:54 am: Edit

My Lyran Tri-Hull PF varients

Hopefully that link will work.
The triple hull design gives allot more flexiblity with weapons packages. The one I have as the Escort would actually be very in line with the other PFs in the area (with adequate point defense, the over-run potential is good too). The Assult version would probably have to be made after the advent of WBPs. And the Phaser version is close to the orgional, but with 360 phaser 3s it's much more capable. As to the 2 phaser 3's replacing a single box on the basic PF they are in a space that can hold a disruptor wich should be allowable. If the PF is deemed to have a too many internals center IMP engine could be removed.

By Pat Moore (Phooka) on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 04:03 am: Edit

I also have to disagree that the lyrans or any race would not build more than one hull of PF, most have competative fighter hulls used at the same time, and I belive even heavy bomber hulls.

PF teach should advance like every other fighter and ship tech. Allmost every new ship type published is redundant to a degree.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 09:48 am: Edit

The Germans did use "milk cow" submarines during WWII, so the idea of a PFPFT is not silly. But I'd build this ship as a Seeker-class variant (from CL23).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 11:22 am: Edit

Pat Moore:

The only one I have misgivings about is the Assault PF. 3 disruptors on a PF hull seems excessive to me. It's true that some bombers have 3 disruptors, but those are not overloadable and can only fire twice on any given mission. The PF disruptors could theoretically fire many times (overloaded) during one mission and I'm not convinced a PF-sized hull could stand up to 3 shots every turn. Other than the Assault PF, I like these. Just my .02 quatloos (is that the correct spelling) worth.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 12:47 pm: Edit

IIRC some PF tenders already have 6 external Meck-links and one enclosed link for repairs, allowing a single tender to carry 7 PFs.

OTOH I do not think that any PFPFT should be able to service an entire flotila, and since the PFPFT needs to have long range engines itself what we are really talking about is a small ship, not a PF at all.

I would recomend starting with a police ship or frigate, striping the weapons and some of the power, and adding two mech-links, about 3 cargo boxes, and two repair boxes. The single PFPC or PFFF travels with the PF flotila, with two PFs on links at any given time rotating the PFs so that their engines are flushed regularly.