When I wrote the last sentence of that post (Mon. Aplil 1 - 1:44 am) that did come to mind. People might buy them just for armor. That wouldn't be good for the game. Mabey destroy or dislodge the thing when the trac/mech-link is destroied.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 02:25 am: Edit

I don't know if I'm quilified to talk this through.


I still don't understand how an F-111 on the end of a mech link gets reloaded by deck-crews!?!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 02:28 am: Edit

What if pontoons were utility items that were mission specific, separate units that did not interact directly with the ship? Note my post April 1, 1:55am.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 02:49 am: Edit

It's not really a mech link for an F-111, more like an external fighter bay that the F-111 slides into.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 03:20 am: Edit

Alex: VIPs in a pontoon? That would be one way to keep them out of your hair!

ROTFLMAO!

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 03:25 am: Edit

One obvious limitation that could (should?) be put on pontoons is that they screw up your Turn Mode and Breakdown ratings.

Say one step worse for 1-3 pontoons, two steps worse for 4-5, and three worse for 6 (I don't think SVC will let us have more than 6 pontoons on a ship. )

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 03:28 am: Edit

If their sizes are similar, I could see a DefSat pontoon being something feasible.

I.e., you drop the pontoon and it becomes a DefSat.

By Jonathan Perry (Jonathan_Perry) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 10:56 am: Edit

Lemme be the first to vote "NO" on the pontoon idea.

I just don't like this concept of strapping external weapons mounts on ships. Huge potential for cheezy abuse.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 11:10 am: Edit

The answer to all of your questions is "Dunno, I am just thinking out loud".

By Douglas E Lampert (Lampert) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 11:35 am: Edit

For what mission is a pontoon better than adding a PF or two? These things will cost R&D, they add to the logistics load (more than a PF which can sometimes transport itself). They are costing you the ability to carry a PF. From Fleet high command's point of view an empty PF link is more versatile and more powerful when you want to use it, so the only advantage of the Pontoon is cost (EBPV since command is not interested in balanced scenarios), but PFs are already quite cheap for their capabilities. Are pontoons going to be even cheaper?!?

If you really want to add cargo to a PFT add a cargo PF, they exist. For weapons or 'armor', I just cannot see this thing competing with having an extra PF in space.

If we must hang something other than a PF on a mech link, let someone mount one or maybe two Drogues in a Heavy fighter mech link or PF meck link, since that rule is already in development and balanced BPVs for that must be figured.

DougL

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 11:43 am: Edit

"The answer to all of your questions is "Dunno, I am just thinking out loud"."

For some reason, I'm reminded of the old E.F. Hutton advertisement: "When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen."

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 12:31 pm: Edit

Doug, the answer is: "Pontoons are better than PFs when PFs are not available."

Like pre-Y183, or at any time for the Feds.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Well these would be better for smaller ships I think.

Take a E4 vs Kzi FF each with a Pontoon with a ADD-12 on it.

It greatly increases the E4's survivalability than it does the FF's.

I'd also go with no weapon arcs, or mauler arcs.

I can't see adding 2 Pontoons to a D7's boom having LF+L/RF+R arcs on the weapons.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 01:02 pm: Edit

A true PFT likely will always have their load of PFs. But casual tenders do not. It seems likely that a mech-link isn't something you pop on and pop off. So,when a casual tender (C7 for instance) isn't tending PFs why not do something with the link. In war, exploit every advantage. You know some leutenant thought of this.
I was thinking that a pontoon would only have 3 or 4 internals. A lot less than a PF. Obsructing turn mode or move cost when PFs don't seem not right.(If thats the case. Who am I to say?)

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Leutenant? Are you German by any chance Knight?

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Tell me this isn't a slightly premature April 1st joke...

You have no idea how much I hate this. Really.

If it's allowed only to PFTs, it puts the PFT in combat where it doesn't belong (or converts a PFT into a drone cruiser).

If it's allowed to everyone, it just adds 1-4 weapons to every ship that feels like paying a few BPV. Balance goes out of the window.

Burn it.

If it must be done, allow a cargo-only mini-pod of similar volume to a PF (say 8 Cargo50 total, maybe an impulse engine for planetary landings). Even that seems a bit too good: compare the Tholian CPC pallet, which adds to the ship's MC.

By Eric Stork (Merchant) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Pontoons: Save it for a new race idea, one that doesn't use PFs.

By John de Michele (Johnd) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 05:40 pm: Edit

I agree with Erik. This could be a race's 'gimick', similiar to the Orions or Iridani. Giving this to everyone seems like a game breaker to me.

John.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 05:44 pm: Edit

April Fool's conversation maybe?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 06:11 pm: Edit

Weapons on pontoon might be, but utility type wouldn't be. Seems a logical use of an unused mech-link....ON A CASUAL TENDER.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Why would Pontoons be better than PFs.


Possibilities are:-

1) Able to fire whist protected by the PFT's sheilds, thus providing each single pontoon with a number of sheild boxes that the PF would individually not be able to have.

2) Possibly with a Photon or Disruptor mounted as pratically the only thing in a size class 5 Pontoon, and coupled with fire control information from the PFT, you may have an accurate enough, and stable enough platform from which to hurl R30 Photons and R30 & R22 Disruptor shots. Something PFs just can't do.


These could be the advantages that makes the selection of Pontoons over PFs a valid choice for the Admiralty.

By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 09:53 pm: Edit

I still don't see an aimable DF weapon being practical. These things should be small, for exactly the maneuverability reasons stated. If they're approximately SC6, they wouldn't affect anything.
After all, shuttles on Gorn balconies don't affect anything.

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 10:13 pm: Edit

My question is:
could the pontoons be carried as cargo, and then deployed while waiting for a returning PF strike?

This would give a PFT some defenses in case it was attacked while waiting for its flotilla to return.

By L.LeBlanc (Lessss) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 10:24 pm: Edit

If the thing had to be dropped, wait 8 impulses to arm, then fire it might be ok, but it should not be able to fire while attached to the link.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 10:27 pm: Edit

I would think one could be put into a shuttle bay for some purpose but you couldn't opperate shuttles while it was there. Though smaller than a PF, I couldn't see one fitting through a cargo hatch. I guess what I'm picturing is some thing roughly the size of a double wide mobile home.
I think.....there for I am.