Alan: I agree the three disruptors might be a bit much, but the idea got me thinking about another line of possibilities. The PFs were all designed (supposibly) without WBPs in mind, wouldn't new designs made after the advent of WBPs be designed to emply them more fully? I mean the WBPs are great but on many PFs they are completely excessive.

Perhaps there could be second generation PF warp engines with say 8 or 9 WRP and only 4 or 3 WBP that would get a slightly reduced chance of the engine burning off on a single hit. Like a -1 or 2 to the extra damage roll. Many of the PFs out there could operate very well with only 8 warp.

Another engine option I was trying out for some "heavy interceptor" designs were 6 WRP box interceptors that because of thier size and ease of matinace could be "tuned" to produce 2 extra points of power if the engines were undamaged (and thus thrown out of tune). Basically the first WRP hit costs the unit 3 points of power and after that it's normal.

I realise that one of the benifits of WBPs is that they absorb damage for the ship's normal engines and reduce repair costs, but tecnology should advance somwhere. Maybe PF engines that take damage like INT engines.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 12:38 pm: Edit

How about a "circuit breaker" that limits the damage a PF can take to the WBP?

When a PF with packs takes a hit to its WBP. No matter what is rolled, the worst that can happen is that the pack is totalled and the PF's warp drive is fine. If the PF takes a engine hit while the destroyed packs are still attached, the damage effect is rolled as normal, this time against the PF's warp drive.

X-ships would still play hades with PFs because of their ability to engage a PF using X-aegis: First volley blows out the packs, second blows out the drive.

By Pat Moore (Phooka) on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 06:35 am: Edit

Optomised Fast Patrol Ships.

In Y182 the lyrans, realising thier bobcat PF was inadquate for many roles in comparison with thier enemies designs began work on an improved PF design. The slight advances made with leader PFs and fire controll systems that were designed with PFs in mind (previous PF fire control systems was hasheed together from ship and fighter electronics and made things like wide fireing arcs difficult to achive) allowed them to design a new PF with an improved weapons suite.

Other races followed suite, often designing PFs that took thier design basis from the war construction ships. With wider fireing arcs and occasionally more weapons they represented a substatial upgrade in PF technology without having to resort to heavier hulls.

Here is another link to the lyrans, assume they would get shield up grades
The Optomised PFs for the other races

Few non-combat varients of the optomised PFs were built, since the older designs were just as good in most of those roles. In many cases a leader varient was not produced because the extra systems would be too much strain on the engines the older first generation PF leaders and often scouts were used with the new flotillas.

The Kznti Nail PF looses modularity and gains an adequate Phaser 1 suite

The New Gorn PF Gets a new leader since it has the same number of boxes as the old one.

The Hydran Hybred PF's engine can use 1 2 or 3 WBPs with 2 it rolls a d6-1 to determine additional damage, with only one it rolls a d6-2 minimum 1 of course.

The ISC gets defensive plasmas like the rest of the fleet.

The Klingon gets wider disruptor arcs and a PH-3, the assult version gets FA+L and FA+R disruptors.

The Romulan looses modularity and gains a phaser and plasma suite that is more along the lines of what the gorn has.

The Federation looses a drone rack and gains a formidable phaser suite.

Haven't worked on the other races yet.

By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 11:15 pm: Edit

I have to honestly say that I think this has gone to the point of rediculousness.

As I recall there are already beefed up PF's from Steller shadows so whats the point of this? It appears as though someone is just looking for the super "Uber" PF that can do all and win all.

Sorry all, Not meaning to step on anyones toes here but this just is too much

My two Pents

By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 12:22 am: Edit

One more thing I just found. This comes directly from the Auto Reject list.

"Heavy PFs that are not conjectural (e.g., Lyran trimaran, Double Bubble Gorn, or Twin Hull Tholians). "

By Pat Moore (Phooka) on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 03:02 am: Edit

Heavy means more boxes, no matter the hull type. I would think the examples in the Auto Reject List should refer to PFs that were actually heavier than the norm as opposed to simply multiple hull concepts. A Gorn double bubble PF should be ok if has the same or fewer systems.

And as far as up gunning PFs, why not? Fighters and ships all get up gunned during the same time period, and since PFs would be a really important part of a force they should be optomised too.

The PFs I designed are all within the limits of the normal PFs (as far as I can tell what those limits are).

This is a discussion about a possible modual K2, I for one really didn't see much of a need for modual J2. If not improved PFs and new PF support pardigms what would be in a hypothetical modual K2?

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 03:35 am: Edit

The Lyrans operated the Bobcat for 5 years before all other races had invented them then ran with that same design for over another decade. Strains credibility that the Lyrans would stick to the least effective PF design for so long without making an attempt to improve it based on the lessons of actual combat. Many other PFs were in service for long enough that design flaws could be eligible for correction. The designs won't be bigger but will be better able to handle the shifting requirements of warfare.

Lyrans can't be transformed from the worst PF to the PF; Lyran technology seems to preclude that. A Lyran PF the exceeds the Tholian PF should be possible.

All the races have to deal with the change from unpacked fighters (when PFs were designed) to facing mega-fighters; X-ships; and Andromedans. The PF requirements will naturally shift also.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 08:40 am: Edit

I don't think any improved Lyran PF should exceed the Tholian. One that approaches it (say, swapping a hull in the current Lyran for an extra FA P2) should be enough.

By Pat Moore (Phooka) on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 05:41 pm: Edit

I agree, the tholian is pretty much maxed out for a direct fire PF. The only improvement I would say it could use would be a single rear web snare, probably at the cost of a battery or apr.

One of the things I like about the PFs is that they are very individual for each race, and I think that individuality needs to be preserved. I think the best way to do that is to apply as much of each races' individual tech to any new PF designs. So I still think the best thing to add to the lyran would be a mini esg. Actually that could explain the evolution of PFs in the first place, the lyrans were attemting to make an "esg torpedo" that could be towed into battle attached to a ship. They didn't manage to minaturise the esg quickly enough but managed to make the rest of the PF tech so they just turned it into a weapons platform. The mini esg comes along later and by then it can be added to a normal PF.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 06:02 pm: Edit

Pat Moore:

The Tholians can already field PFs with snares. The standard Arachnid has 2 Dis, 2 Ph-1 and 2 Ph-3 but usually 2 PFs per flotilla will the -W version, which replaces the Ph-3s with web generators. (There is no -W version for for the Leader or Scout, however.) The Arachnid-Ws eventually (don't recall exact year) become eligible for the snare refit, so a late Tholian PF flotilla will have 2 of the 6 PFs with 2 snares each.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 06:16 pm: Edit

One thing with the idea of Heavy PFs though....you make them much bigger and give them much more power and weapons and you have something called a Frigate......

By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 07:06 pm: Edit

Richard, they did give the PFs the shield refit, so that is at least one improvement the Lyrans made.

Also, the Lyrans only developped the PF a year ahead of the Klingons (and only two ahead of the Hydrans).
They did spend several years with INTs, but the result of that was the PF design.

If you want something further that fits the current "restrictions" you might look at my light PF earlier in the discussion.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 08:12 pm: Edit

One thing that a K2 module might include would be new PF Tenders. I'm thinking of something analogous to the Strike Carriers, i.e. heavy cruiser (or NCA) hull, cruiser firepower, but no special sensors. Such a "Strike PFT" would not have the scout capabilities of a PFT built on a war cruiser hull but it would have much more firepower. The squadron/fleet containing such a Strike PFT would still need scout support from another ship, so it might not seem like this gains much. But many of the war cruiser-based PFTs only have 2 special sensors while scouts built on war cruiser hulls generally have 4. Consider a war cruiser-PFT plus a heavy cruiser vs. a Strike PFT plus a heavy scout. Both require one heavy cruiser hull and one war cruiser hull. Both have about the same firepower (heavy cruiser plus PF flotilla) but the Strike PFT plus heavy scout has better EW capability due to more special sensors. But it also has the disadvantage that if the PFS is destroyed, the Strike PFT could not lend EW to the flotilla the way a war cruiser-PFT could. It could also be argued that a war cruiser PFT can support the fleet with EW while hanging further back from the enemy, while a Strike PFT, to be fully useful, has to get within effective weapons range. That is true, but it is also true of strike carriers, battle carriers, battle control ships, heavy carriers, space control ships, the ROC...

Some races might not build Strike PFTs since they already have PFTs with approximately cruiser firepower (Klingon D-5P and D-6P, for example). Using their heavy weapons would blind the special sensors, of course, but these ships have the option of either firepower or fleet EW support, depending on what the situation calls for. To avoid "cookie cutterism", some races might go the D-6P (EW capability and almost-but-not-quite-cruiser firepower) route while other races choose to build Strike PFTs with full cruiser armament, but no special sensors.

One thing a conventional war cruiser-PFT could do that a Strike PFT could not is RTN hunting. But this is only viable against small Andro bases since any major base would be too much for one PFT to handle anyway.

I'm not sure if Strike PFTs are viable, but I think it's worth looking at. Comments?

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 10:19 pm: Edit

As things stand now, the scout carrier (introduced in J2) is the precursor of the PFT and the doctrine used by PFT's was developed by the scout carriers. Thus, there is currently no place in the ship development curve for a strike PFT. That said, if there were a demonstrated need for such a class, it would at least have been considered (i.e. a design study commissioned).

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 02:28 am: Edit

David Kass: You are correct, I forgot to include the PF shield upgrade. (Actually, I remembered the PF shield upgrade as being early in the development so the last races to deploy PFs included it.) There is still a long period of time after the shield refit when PFs are a major part of the fleets and some don't work well under those changing conditions. Fighters got improved every few years; sticking with an inadequate PF design for 15 years seems imprudent.

Design the PF that play shows needs to exist; let the PTB decide if they want to include it.

By Pat Moore (Phooka) on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 04:15 am: Edit

Alan: Yup I know. There are web generators on some tholian PFs ia a squadron, I was saying that as an improvement adding one to every PF in the squadron would be reasonable.

The idea that the PF tender would be a scout, with it's limited sensor capacity allways struck me as kinda pointless. Basically trading extra scout capacity of the fleet in for a PF squadron. Especially when PF scouts were added. So a strike PF tender is a good idea in my eyes.

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Strike PFT:
Lyran BCH, DN, DNH
LDR BCH
Romulan ROC

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 12:58 pm: Edit

If you include PFT's without sensor channels, we have a whole run of BCPs like the hydran overseer. I THINK it's the overseer...Overmind?

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 10:05 pm: Edit

JohnT, do you mean the BCS (flotilla plus fighters) [Hyd Overmind]?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 10:52 pm: Edit

Yup.

The overseer would be the carrier version then.

By Rob B (Animus_Atrum) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 12:53 am: Edit

I have a couple of couple of comments to add to add to the Lyran/Kzin PF battle discussion. First, why is everyone always talking about R8 for the Kzin? So far as I know, their disruptors work just as well at R10 as anyone elses. Timed rite, the drones SHOULD force the Lyrans to fire at R10 then turn and run. As the Kzin, I would know this, and plan for it (as the Lyrans would be suicidal to try to wade thru my drone swarm) and NOT O/L my disruptors, possibly not even arming them on the first turn to allow for reinforcement and EW. Then, as they spend three turns running, I give chase. This would allow 4 consecutive turns of disruptor and phasor fire into rear shields, and even after the possibility of losing a PF to first volley (less likely since I put power into defense) I have still fired 60% more disruptors over the course of those turns. Not as much shock value, I realize, but rear shields are slightly weaker, anyways. And before anyone mentions the leader's T-bomb, realize that I'll try to hold my fire until imp 25 to stop him from lowering his shields. Eventally, of course, he'll use his T-bomb to wipe out my drones, but by then I'll have a second wave of drones out behind the first to deter his overrun. None of this is definate, of course, since my opponent will certainly not play the game the way I'd like, but the only real counter to this is to wade through drones, which the Lyrans are not good at. Even with the T-bomb you only take out one wave at a time, and not even all of that. Also, my damaged PF should still be able to contribute, since if you obliqued me it shouldnt be my #1 shield that's down, and drones dont take any power so even with some engine damage should be able to keep up. If he cant, he'll fire off drones and fall behind, it's more important to keep the pressure on than to have one more hull, especially one that's only partially functional.

The problem with the discussion so far has been that Lyran advocates have been assuming that a Kzin needs to hit with drones to win. That is absolutely not the case. When was the last time a drone hit one of your ships that was not already doomed? Drones are a combination of shields and terrain, IMO. Don't expect a hit, use them to force your opponent to move how you want him to.

Someone mentioned both MW drones and swordfish drones. Dogfight drones are foolish in open map PF battles, their endurance is too short to have any effect unless you can force the range. I've never really thought much of phaser drones, since in ship battles the damage is negligable, but against a PF 3 damage (a ph-3's average damage at R2) is 20-33% of a shield. My next battle will most likely have enemy PFs in it, I am now certainly going to include some swordfish drones to surprise him.

Having said all that, it was pointed out earlier that the advantage of Lyran PFs is that they are CHEAP. Until I read this thread, I thought they were the worst PFs in the game. Now I see them as the best attrition ship out there. No, they're not incredibly powerful, just incredibly plentiful. But then, that's what attrition's all about.

Now, since I'm not the biggest PF fan I dont usually play the flotilla vs. flotilla game (my fav races dont use them much, if at all), I cant claim tons of experiance, but I have done a couple of Drone PF vs. Lyran flotilla battles, and I (as the Lyrans) lost both times.

So maybe that was more than just a couple of comments, I'll shut up now. At least until someone replies.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:47 am: Edit

Rob: The range 8 versus range 10 comparison comes up because it shows how limited the Lyran advantage of 2 disruptors are, if the power to overload is hard to come by. If the Kzinti and Lyran DF are about equal and the Kzinti still has plenty of drones, the Lyran is at a boring disadvantage.

Cheap does not help in situations where the various numbers of PFs are limited. Plus in many situations, Lyran PFs don't give their money's worth because they don't generate damage as rapidly as other PFs. Many Lyran PF tactics are also awkward in conjunction with Lyran fleet elements; the PFs need to manuever much more freely than the fleet can permit.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 02:14 am: Edit

Richard, looking at my MSC, it seems that the last major round of fighter upgrades occurs around Y183 (I don't have J2 available right now, so that may have a later round; the Fed F14 is also an exception). This is also largely true for many general ship improvements. I've always taken this as a general "stand down" of military research due to the end of the General War (formal peace in spring Y185)--also remember that the Klingons and Lyrans were in particularly bad economic shape by this time.

In between the economic exhaustion and the lower combat intensity after the general war (the ISC didn't get to the Lyrans for a while), I can see PF use decreasing (they are attrition units), even for the Lyrans. This would have further removed any impetus for additional research.

I guess I'm saying that I don't find it surprising that in the 15 years after the general war there was little progress on Lyran PFs. Also remember they were primarily fighting Andros during this time and the 2 disruptors are more useful than drones (one of the places where the G1B is better than a G1)--and look at how pitiful the Andro AU (MWP) are.

By Rob B (Animus_Atrum) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 02:30 am: Edit

Richard - I understand that rationale for one O/Led disruptor having the same damage to power ratio at range 8 or less as two standard disruptors, my comment was that people are focusing too much on O/Ling and not thinking of other possibilities.

I also understand that there is a ceiling to how many attrition units you can have in a game, and the difficulty of using Lyran PFs with an ESG fleet. However, in squadron battles having 2-4 casual PFs could be a decided firepower advantage, especially considering some of the common Lyran ships (the Jaguar comes to mind). And, in an equal BPV battle, the two sides would be balanced, at least in theory. For instance, in terms of BPV a full Lyran flotilla's counterpart would include only 4-5 enemy PFs.

As I said, I dont often play with PFs (or Lyrans, for that matter), so I cant claim any particular expertise with them. Nor do I often play large fleet battles, they simply take too long and I have no place to store the board for weeks on end between battles. A large portion of my statement is theoretical, I'll admit that.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 12:18 pm: Edit

R10 is the max range of PF disruptors.