...and conjectural PF photons if the Third Way is in play.

By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 04:20 pm: Edit

R10 is the max range of ALL direct fire heavy weapons.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Photons are restricted to range 12 on PFs.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 04:54 pm: Edit

oops. my bad

By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 12:30 am: Edit

yes r12 on the Phots,
forgot that is the only exception to the rule. My bad.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 01:45 pm: Edit

What we need is a fast PF-tender. Breaks through the lines, disgorges two flotillas of PFs onto a reinforced convoy, and leaves nothing but debris.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 04:04 pm: Edit

A fast destroyer/light cruiser hull that mounts 6 pfs, or a fast heavy cruiser hull that mounts 12 pfs, that can arrive on scene and function as a scout would be ideal for both raiding missions and fleet support. Giving such hulls sufficient special sensors would make them potent late-war heavy scouts that also alleviate the need for a separate PFT (or vice versa, a tender that alleviates the need for a separate scout).

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Weapon Pods

One idea would be to allow PFs to replace their warp booster packs with a weapon pod that would be like a small sled attached to the engines. The weapons on the pod are covered during "strategic" movement and the covers "blow away" when entering tactical warp for use in combat. Each pod would contain a weapon, such as a drone, plasma cannister, or what have you.

This ups the one-shot firepower of a PF at the expense of using booster packs. It would be particularly effective on convoy raids where high tactical speed is not required.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 04:19 pm: Edit

You don't need a "fast" ship carrying PFs to raid a convoy.

You use a plain-jane CW-PFT.

On long-range sensors a CW-PFT looks like a plain jane CW (well if it's sensors are on, it'll reveal itself as a PFT).

So if you dispatch your forces to intercept "that" CW, another one that is really PFT slips by.

It's the old 'shell game' of guessing which is the CW-PFT and which is the CW.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Scott:

You need a "fast" ship carrying PFs in the same way you need a "fast" warship. It has increased strategic speed and the ability to raid deep in enemy territory, as only a fast ship (or X ship)can do. PFs and standard PFTs can't do that, even though they have high tactical speeds.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 05:02 pm: Edit

The "Fast" warship concept was widely considered a failure. Yes, New Fast Cruisers were built (R10), but most (all?) of these were replacements for lost hulls.

I do not believe there should ever be Fast PFTs, unless one or two races (Lyran or Gorn maybe) do a conversion of an existing Fast Ship.

I also do not ever want to see a ship which can support 12 PFs. Let's leave the Kzinti SSCS unique on that point.⁴²

By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Zathras:
Romulan Modular DN's can be so configured, but they are just as (well even more so) unique as the SSCS.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 05:22 pm: Edit

Point taken.

To tell you the truth, I think one of the "mainstays" of any "Module K2" could be the Strike Tender. Take a Command Cruiser, add a flotilla of PFs, send on patrol. Let the CW-PFT-Scouts support a fleet, but let my heavy-weapon-totin', PF carryin', chip-on-the-shoulder, secure the border from raiders.

I've actually worked up a Strike Tender for most of the races. I'll post links tonight when I get home.⁴²

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 05:37 pm: Edit

PFTs based on fast ships need to be viewed with caution. The biggest reason is not their high strategic (F&E) speed, but the amount of power they have at the tactical (SFB) level. Most current PFTs can't make full use of their sensors without slowing down. A Fast PFT would be able to lend a lot more EW than any normal scout would with much less concern about its won safety.

The Fed CFS from Captain's Log provides a good model. Thankfully, the ship is unique. Otherwise, the Feds would crank out as many as thier production facilities could reasonably handle. If that was a PFT, it could lend a full six points of EW to its PF flotilla and still operate at speed 31.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Jeremy, I agree completely. It would be powerful indeed, but I would strip it of all heavy weapons in favor of the extra sensors (if any) and limit its armament to phasers. Speed would be its defense.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Let me add that flotillas based on such tenders could forego the PFS attached to the flotilla, because its mission wouldn't need one, and its capabilities surplant it. This presents massive economic savings for little tactical loss (i.e., wild PFS).

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 06:11 pm: Edit

I can see this being a good "one off" ship for the Lyrans, Gorn, and maybe the LDR. I don't see it being a good idea for everyone, but then I think that the Lyran and Gorn shouldn't have fighters in the first place, and should rely on their allies for fighters. In the same vein only the Hydrans and the Orions should have both PFs and fighters, and the Orions should scavenge both Fighters and PFs instead of making either.

ADM

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 06:20 pm: Edit

On the X2 thread there has been some discussion (not recently) of X2-Fighters but very little on X2-PFs. I don't know whether TPTB have ruled on X2 attrition units generally, but if X2-PFs are still on the table, one way to increase racial differentiation would be for some races to possess X2-Fighters but not PFs and others to possess X2-PFs but not fighters. Based on the fighters/PFs from the GW era, the Hydrans and the drone-users get much more bang for the buck from their fighters than do the Tholians or the plasma races. So preliminarily we might make that the division point between the categories, i.e. Tholians, Romulans, Gorns, and ISC have X2-PFs while everyone else has X2-Fighters.

The Lyrans and Orions would be special cases. The Lyrans have no real seeking weapon capability except in their fighter squadrons and may not be willing to lose that. Perhaps the Lyrans produce X2-PFs for themselves but have a (very) small number of X2 Carriers carrying Klingon-supplied fighters. The Orions are, well, Orions. Perhaps the Orions and Lyrans would be the only two races with both X2-PFs and X2-Fighters.

Some issues:

1. The BPVs have to "play nice" with X1 and GW technology. As a hunch, based on nothing more than "gut feeling", this may be even harder to work out with attrition units than with X2 ships.

2. Note that an X2-Fighter squadron need not match an X2-PF flotilla in actual combat power. If 6 X2-PFs are 50% more powerful than 12 X2-Fighters, that is fine as long as 6 X2-PFs cost 50% more.

3. Will the line hold? Currently the Feds have PFs and almost everyone has Battleships. Call these units "conjectural" all you want, but ADB approved SSDs and BPVs are published. I think we can be certain that the "X2-Fighter races" will clamor that they really need X2-PFs as well and the "X2-PF races" will likewise insist on having some of those cool X2-Fighters. Assuming TPTB allow X2 attrition units at all, it may prove impossible to maintain the distinction and everyone will end up with both types of units anyway. In which case, it may be better to recognize this from the start.

4. This is worth considering in the K2 thread if Module K2 will be published after Module X2, or even if it will be published before X2, but after the X2 rules have been well defined. But if K2 will go to press while X2 is still in flux, it would be pointless to worry about X2 PFs in Module K2. Does anyone know when these are supposed to be out, or even if that decision has been made?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 06:32 pm: Edit

ADM:

I'm not sure if your post was addressing Marc Baluda's suggestion for a "Fast PFT" or Robert Cole's for a "Strike PFT". The Tholians don't have a "fast" ship prior to the introduction of X-technology. But if your comment concerns the "Strike PFT" idea, why do you not see this as being a good "one off" ship for the Tholians? The Tholians have a larger gap in capability between their PFs and their best fighters than any other race. The problem for the Tholians is finding the right hull, though I have some ideas.

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 06:41 pm: Edit

Fast PFT? See R11.63, the Lyran DNL. It can carry 6 PFs, and can qualify to be a true PFT.

OTOH, most races build a Fast NCA and an NCA based PFT. Combine them, and Fast PFTs for everybody!

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 07:12 pm: Edit

"Drop Tanks" for PFs.

Well, they're not actually fuel tanks. They are jettisonable attachments that temporarily prevent the buildup of "ionic charges" in the PF's engines by drawing the charges into the "tanks". When the tanks are full, the PFs jettison them and continue on their way. Drop tanks can only be attached to PFs with WBPs and are automatically jettisoned if those are jettisoned, but usually the drop tanks are jettisoned seperately.

Tactically, the tanks are a liability since they increase the turn mode to the next higher category and increase movement cost to 1/4. Also, a PF with tanks cannot HET , loses nimble status while the tanks are attached,and will take increased engine damage since it must have its WBPs.

The purpose of the tanks is to allow PFs to launch longer range independent strikes, by paying increased EPV for the tanks. This would primarily be of interest in a campaign setting where independent strikes are a possibility. Typically the PFs would jettison prior to attacking the target and would fight at full effect, though as mentioned they have to pay EPV to launch a strike at this range in the first place.

An SFB scenario for drop tanks, independent of a campaign, might involve a flotilla on long range strike being intercepted before it reaches the planned jettison point. The intercepting force gets some number of victory points for each PF that jettisons the tanks, even if the PF is otherwise undamaged. This is because the PF would have to abort the original mission and return to its tender. PFs that disengage with tanks still attached, in the original target's direction, count as victory points for the flotilla rather than the intercepting force. Conceptually the scenarion would be similar to the existing scenario "Tomcat Terror versus Gunboat Diplomacy" (I think that's the correct name) but the intercepting force might be anything.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 07:21 pm: Edit

Maybe it something that could help keep PF useful during the Post War Era.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 08:17 pm: Edit

As mentioned above, here is a link to my "Strike Tender" designs. For the most part they are all pretty straight forward, but I think (and yes, I am biased) this is an idea that could form the core of Module K2.

Comments and criticisms are welcome as always... just remember I'm no good at guessing BPVs J.⁴²

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 09:06 pm: Edit

Robert Cole:

I generally like your Strike Tenders but I have a couple of comments.

1. The Klingon is badly underpriced. 120 points base cost when most of the Strike PFTs are in the 160+ range.

2. The Tholian loses too much power. It drops 6 points (from 35 to 29) when most of the Strike Tenders drop from 2 to 4 points. The Tholian has a power-hungry weapon suite and 29 points isn't sufficient. The problem is that the Tholian changes 3 APR to Repair and 3 APR revert back to hull, presumably because of the way the boxes are laid out. I don't think any of the other Strike Tenders have power systems converting to hull in the conversion to Tender. Even if you have to rearrange some hull boxes (and perhaps increase the BPV), it needs the 3 APR back to be viable.

3. I think the Hydran is underpriced, retaining 40 points of power even after conversion of some APR to repair. With 40 points, plus its weapons, plus its fighters, which it keeps, this is IMO the strongest of all the Strike Tenders. (It is not, however, as badly underpriced as the Klingon.)

Just my .02 quatloos worth.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 09:22 pm: Edit

Additional comments:

1. When I said that most Strike Tenders were in the 160+ range I was assuming a nominal drone load-out. Thus the Kzinti Strike Tender is 140 points but has 20 spaces worth of drones to fill. Since PFs are in the fast-drone time period I made the assumption that this would amount to at least 20 points, though the Kzinti could, for example, buy lots of Type-IV drones to reduce the cost.

2. The Seltorian may be overpriced. It is one of the few inexpensive Strike Tenders but still generates 40 points of power. Its weapon suite is not nearly as cool overall as the Hydran weapon suite, of course.

3. I believe the ISC Strike Tenders are probably overpriced. They have a huge amount of firepower, but like the Tholian they lost a lot energy generation capability. They either need to get some of that energy back or the BPV has to come down a bit.

I hope I don't sound too critical. I really like what you've done and would love to see this in K2.