The conversations about hanging type-H drones under the mech links of a PFT got me to thinking.

In theory, you could build a structure (I picked the word "pontoon" because it hasn't been used in SFB and we'd know we were talking about this and nothing else) which clamps to a mech link and amounts to a weapons rack. It could carry various weapons. Obviously, it could carry drones and plasma-F/D/K. Perhaps it could carry a weapon like a photon? Perhaps a given PFT might have four pontoons with disruptors and two with APRs?

Is there no limit to this madness? Could a PFT carry pontoons that lay mines?

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Speaking of "limits to this madness" ...

You do realize that every person whose favorite race uses drones is about to start asking for Slava-class CWs and CLs?

Just checking.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 02:50 pm: Edit

And the road of XO leads to madness, or such did Starfire teach me

Do mech-links have the "plumbing" to accomidate power transfer? If not, having pontoon-mounted energy weapons could be problematic.

And there woukld be accounting for the fire arcs for each meach-link on each PFT (and how having some mech-links occupied affect fire arcs).

I think having pontoons as utlitiy items (cargo, VIP, troop tansport) might be more doable.

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Well, the mech-links do have to have the power cables to bleed off the charges in the warp packs.

And, I suppose some sort of umbilical is necessary to keep the PFs from having to run on their own power when docked.

Plus, if a PFT gets hit, it can score the damage on docked PFs!

(Thinks of Kzinti SSCS, Lyran DNH, shudders.)

By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Another point to the madness, every ship in the game is allowed to add a pair of mech links, so it would then follow that every ship in the game could have a pair of pontoons added for extra weapons. Could get scary.

By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Actully adding a pair of these to any old ship sounds like it would cause shock damage (sort of the equivalent of overgunned ships). Or perhaps the pontoon itself absorbs the shock damage, and eventually stops working.

By Charles E. Gray (Cgray45) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 04:43 pm: Edit

I don't personally like the pontoon idea, but it could work, although I would say you should charge extra BPV to weaponize the mech links.
What I do see are some ships with lots of single shot Type H racks-- very heavy single shot throw weight at t he cost of almost no staying power.
What I want to see is an Honor Harrington style pod DN, 6 two box bays, that can tow pods behind it.
I suggest that the first ship in this class be named the "oh My G-BOOM!" in honor of the first tnemy captain to see it in action.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 04:46 pm: Edit

Problem with that idea, as much as I like it too, is that Honor's universe doesn't have anything as effective as the wild weasel. It would be entirely too easy to neuter a ship like that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 05:35 pm: Edit

When I asked SVC about hanging a Type-H on a mech link the thought was that they were a size class bigger than a normal drone. Beefy enough to clamp onto. I still think this would be cool. If you try to send a true PFT against a cruiser with six Type-H drones clamped on then YOU'RE GONNA DIE. However, not every D7C can always be supplied with PFs. So, in the mean time it carrys two Type-Hs.
Pontoons sound very interesting. Its hard to come up with surprises in this game with experienced players. However, I have a problem with the advanced guidence nessasary to fire direct fire weapons. At best a -2 to hit would seem likely. It seems to me such weapons need to be carefuly designed into a ship in order to be callibrated correctly. Thats why ships have more hull than weapons(PFs excluded).
Seaking weapons are controlled via sub-space and don't really require a major set up to add more.

I would say a weapon attached to a ships mech-link must have that weapons fire control system already on board. No drone racks? Then you couldn't attach a drone to a mech-link.

Mabey some sort of non-moving scatter pack? A troop transport drop ship?(Moves speed 1 and lands on planets. Enters Atmosphere the same impulse it is dropped if dropped from orbit.)
This is getting to long, so I'll stop now.

By Jonathan McDermott (Caraig) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 09:35 pm: Edit

I agree; there should be a BPV cost to 'weaponizing' the mech-link, to making it capable of carrying a pontoon. And it should be a fairly high cost, too. I don't know what Fed rules on mechlinks on tractors are, but if this is implemented, Fed players may start wanting them. And why not? It's a cheap way of giving a CA the armament of a BCH.....

So, if mechlinks can structurally handle PFs and pontoons, I think there should be a cost for installing high-energy power feeds to the mechlinks as well. (I wouldn't imagine that would be on the minds of the people who came up with mechlinks.) I would also say that shuttle/heavy fighter mechlinks would not be able to carry and fire heavy weapon (or H-rack) pontoons.

Would special sensors be able to be carried on pontoons? My gut feeling is 'No,' but SpecSens can be put into option mounts. This would have to be addressed.

I'd say that anything heavier than F-torps and photons/disruptors shouldn't be mounted on pontoons. (Unless you really want rules about superheavy weapons on pontoons firing and then blowing the pontoon off -- suicide G-plasma, anyone? =) Oh, and that one nation's pontoons are egregiously different from any other race's to prvent cross-polinization -- no Lyran PFTs mounting 3 twin-photon pontoons and 3 AWRs! =)

All in all, I kind of like the idea, I admit. Would this be something the feds would play with? or maybe, something that *other* races played with, while the Feds were the only ones who used drogues? Just a thought. =)

By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 10:41 pm: Edit

I can see doing it with drones, something like the rocket launcher on an Apache, with a max of 6 drones in it, firable maybe 2 per turn like a C-rack. I can see doing it with Plasma-F (since freezer-box technology already exists) with maybe two shots, once per turn, non-reloadable. I can't see doing it with a direct-fire weapon, again, for the reasons stated. Just too much power through too small a wire; it'd burn out before it was charged. Besides, how would you aim it? F-arc centerline only? Cuz you'd have to aim the ship, not the weapon system.
Special Sensors.... Maybe with a max power allocation; like you can't put more than 2 points of power into it?
They'd have to have explosive bolts, too, so that you could make room to dock a PF there for whatever reason.
Just thinking.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 11:23 pm: Edit

This is just my opinion, but it seems to me that PFTs would be too busy tending to PFs to have these things hooked up to their mechlinks. It would be like, well, rigging 8" turrets on the deck of a carrier in the middle of WWII; while it may indeed turn the CV into a potent surface combatant, it would deprive the Navy of the deployment of some 80+ carrier aircraft...a greater cost in overall power projection than the 8" guns could counter. PFTs were, from all indication, in great demand for PFT duty; rigging one with pontoons would deprive a squadron or fleet of a PF flotilla.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 11:38 pm: Edit

I can't see why any Race would use up a true PFT for anything but PFT'ing. I compleatly agree with Jessica. However casual tenders are another matter. Once again I cite the D7C or the D7W or the C7. These could greatly benefit the ship in special missions. Imagine the scenarios one could write about such a system.

Could I also suggest any drone rack pontoon not be re-loadable during a scenario?( and you can't take them off the pontoon for scatter packs eather!)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Has anyone thought about how many Mech linbks a Fi-Con has!?!

Now replace all those fighters with one phot-torp.

And PFLs always have one mechlink.

PFTs would become BATTLE TUGS...and I think there in lies the Real restritction on the divice.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 11:40 pm: Edit

You know, in a way, we're talking mini-tug pods here. Where would thinking along those lines get us?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 11:43 pm: Edit

You read my mind Michael. I was typing mine while you were posting yours! How did you do that?(haha)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 12:00 am: Edit

Here's two ideas.


1) SIZE CLASS 5 PONTOONS
These would cost MC and thus slow the vessel down. probaly based on an interceptor frame but with only a handful of weapons or equipment.

2) SIZE CLASS 5 PONTOONS
These would be built on a shuttle hull...possibly a HTS and would slow the craft down by risk of deathdragging.


These are the two options for avoiding the possiblity that every BCH ( Serbian Lion anyone ) in the galaxcy would want to puchase these things and become a pocket dreadnought.


I see these things as being armed version of modern Garbage Barge towed down the Hudson. Armable but not designed for speed in the slightest and not going anywhere with another vessel towing it there.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 12:04 am: Edit

Telepathy is much more reliable than email...

By Rus Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 01:33 am: Edit

I think the idea is interesting. But.....

It basicaly give all the races option mounts. thus eliminating one of the things that make Orions unique.

I too believe that a PF tender has but one mission. "PF Tending" That said I really dont think there is a use for these things.

Either way I dont think it makes any sense to up the move cost of such a configuered ship. After all if it can hold the bulk of a Small overgunned vessel (PF), then why should a clamp on weapon slow the ship down?
Furthermore, I do seem to remember seeing that shuttles on mech links could not (during the course of a scenario) be armed for special missions. This would seem to indicate to me that it is not possible to route the power through the link for a weapon. (Of course precharged freezer charges could be said to remedy this, but I think it would still limit the weapon to a certain # of firings thus nullifying its value).

I also dont see making these things more expensive than the PF's they would replace, otherwise noone would ever even have a reason to use them. Although if they were cheaper than the PF's, you would see everyone pick these ships over their standard counterparts (tailor building each and every force to the enemy they are expecting to fight).
This basicaly makes cruisers into very large HDW's. And EVERYONE will fill their fleets with them if the cost is lower than the PF's themselves. (and of course if the same cost as the PF's then why even use them?)

I'd say the bottem line is this....
PF Tenders are just that, "PF TENDERS".

If you want a configurable ship or a makshift battle barge, Buy a Tug.

Rus

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 01:44 am: Edit

So what about utility only versions. Adding cargo for extended range or other missions. Mine or additional drone storage. There's a crew hatch so barraks might be possible. Even a two shuttle dock. My drop ship idea above. A probe launcher for science missions. Extra lab. In any case they would add internals to any ship carrying them. Hull, cargo, armor. Almost the same thing during battle.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 01:45 am: Edit

SVC: How many internals would be the max for a pontoon?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 01:55 am: Edit

Here's an idea that a race might use a PFT for other than its normal role. Two standard PF. Two Troop PF. Two drop bases.
Drop Bases????
Ya, drop it from orbit. Lands. Opens up into a Ground Defence location and control station. Instant mini base!

By Rus Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 02:13 am: Edit

Loren,

Your comment two posts ago just lends proof to my comment of these things turning into large HDW's.

Just seems to be the thing these ships would be.

and I stand by my belief that Everyone would use them over the standard ship version.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 02:15 am: Edit

These probably must have some real effects on ships. PFs are supposed to lie very close to the hull. However, pontoons with sensors, labs, or weapons would need to protrude out further to see or fire beyond the ship on which it is mounted. Therefore, possibly blocking firing arcs of existing weapons, reducing turn mode, even increasing move cost are all reasonable negative effects.

Additional negative effects would be to restrict power transfers to those of docked units. That would require non-drone models to supply their own power and could be quickly knocked out of service. Drones could be a problem. The probable firing arc problems won't apply and the Klingons would still have free channels on most ships.

Minelaying pontoons scare me. Looking back at all the rules revisions that were done to reduce the numbers of mines through previous SFB editions, adding mines back does not seem promising.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 02:19 am: Edit

HHhhmmmmm....

Lets look at some styles...


ADMIN FRAME
1 ADD-6 or 1 Type A rack.

HTS FRAME
1 ADD-12 or 1 Type B drone rack.

INTERCEPTOR FRAME
2 Type A Drone racks or two ADD-6

Now with these limited weapons, the pontoon is less effective than the usual PF but it wont have the full 22 PV price tag of an interceptor.


Has anyone considered the possiblitly that these weapons might have RX & RA firing arcs?

To avoid this the pontoons would have to be radically different from the basic forms ( like a suit case is radically different from a backpack ).