Thanks for the warm (?) thoughts guys, but I am still trying to get a module on the schedule. Pissing off the guy who makes that decision is NOT the way to get the answer I want.

Besides, my whole point with the A-18 was not to finally get it published, but to show that an inferior, but similar, fighter has already been submitted and fully rejected. While I will always encourage people to submit ideas they really believe in, don't hold your breath.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Ok...warm and fuzzies time is done!

back to business.

What do people think of a fighter gizmo patterned after a RALAD...titled RALAP.

Basically a Rail Launched Probe.

since it is significantly larger than a ADD it may only be mounted on very heavy drone rails that normally only mount type IV drones (IIRC the only Fed Fighters able to use them are the F14D and F15D.)

It would comply with all Probe rules.

The obvious use is to provide a probe capacity for fighters which, is obviously redundant in view of the probe drone.

the hidden and subtle reason is to add the capacity to configure the weapon as a RALAWEP, or a Rail Launched Weaponized Probe.

The Technobauble rationalization is that a standard probe is loaded into a cannister that is very thin skinned but approximates the size of a Type IV drone, and at the rear of it contains a phaser III capaciter that is rigged to power a staisis field. It is assumed that the cannistier acts in much the same way that a recoiless rifle tube works, in that it focuses the energy used the launch the probe inside the cannister nad does not transfer the shock of the launch to the fighter.

The staisis field is set to contain the probe, that the carrier or base had to arm per the normal probe rules.

The cost of the Staisis field, as measured in the number of turns the stasis field can remain stable.

a standard probe can be loaded onto a fighter and launched normally within 100 turns of being "primed" (or charged), at the end of the 100 turn period the probe must be discharged or used.

a weaponized probe may be held stable for up to 24 turns, at which they must either be discharged or fired.

It is assumed that the probes/cannisters can be powered up (or charged) on the hanger deck...with a maximum of 4 charged per turn, no more than 2 of which may begin the process during any given turn. This means that a rolling arming process of a squadron of 12 fighters (either F14D or F15D
types) would require 12 turns for the full squadron. At which point, the squadron has only 12 turns to use the probes as weapons before the RALAPs or RALAWEPs must be discharged or fired.

This would give F14 and F15 squadrons a direct fire capacity...at the cost of the use of 2 special rails per fighter. Probes used as a weapons can inflict 8 points of damage per probe.

Probes used in this manner, are very short ranged less than 6 hexes normally, with accuracy directly proportional to range. ie the closer to the target, the more accurate the probes are.

The cannisters are indistinquishable form type 4 drones.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 06:48 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

This would give F14 and F15 squadrons a direct fire capacity...at the cost of the use of 2 special rails per fighter. Probes used as a weapons can inflict 8 points of damage per probe.

---

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 07:26 pm: Edit

Probe drone is better in all aspects.

F-14s and F-15s in squadrons can make a dent in a shield from range 10..maybe 20 points or so.

But seriously. F-14s and F-15s are drone chuckers. Stop trying to make them something they are not. IF you want direct fire, take A-10Fs or A-20Fs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit

CFant, but Robert put it well don't you think? If you want a DF F-14 put phaser pods on it in place of drones etc. So no need to make a rule that is esentually already there.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 10:38 pm: Edit

CFant:

Is there an A-10F? I know there's an A-20F but I think the A-10 is limited to speed 10/20. Of course, if Loren's proposal is accepted there will almost certainly be a push for an A-10F by Fed players.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 11:01 pm: Edit

Robert Cole:

Correct me if I am in error, but I thought J2 had already ben published...gee, I just checked the Starfleet Games home page store...and J2 is there...Have to admit that you have me confused as to what your point is about working on J2.

Second, the choice of the F14 and F15 fighters was driven by the existance of the heavy special rails. If another fighter type had them, I would have specified the alternative.

Cfant- your opposition is noted.

Loren, To get the same effect that you suggest by using phaser pods, you will have to add 4 of them...each taking a rail...atleast using the RALAWEP option only takes 2 of the rails...not 4 of them...

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 12:04 am: Edit

Jeff: Using armed probes to make an end run around the photon limits bothers me. Now, informational probes on fighters seems like a possibly interesting option but perhaps it would better placed in the F-111 internal bay.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 12:06 am: Edit

Zathras not noticing that J2 being published . . . tsk tsk tsk . . . chortle . . . Zathras always not listening to Zathras. Zathras not have his coffee this morning, no no no no no no.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 12:09 am: Edit

I realise that the ZDF is a poor choice of designation as on already exsists (as does the A-10F). Any fighter with WBP is designated with an F if I'm not mistaken.

Since this this version essentually adds drones (and changes the Ph-3 set up) perhaps it should be called Z-DG. (Though I liked how the ZDF sounded).

As to an A-10 analog to the Z-DG I don't think that the Feds would do that. The Klingon would in order to create a unified squadron that is able to counter Stingers well. It is also good at attacking fleet elements and can do well defending itself against other fighters BUT is not something for killing other fighters with. It is NOT a space superiority fighter.

The Feds only use the A-10 (and A-20) in the presense of other fighters so the improvement that the Z-DG gets wouldn't add much (except cost).

The Z-DG would operate in full squadrons. The A-10 would too but always in the presense of other fighters that have PA-LENTEE of drones already. The best thing for the A-10 already exsists and that is the Mega Pack.

The idea behind the Z-DG was a unified fighter design; Multi-role and highly effective in squadrons.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 12:10 am: Edit

There is no real need for a new probe on a rail launch system. As mentioned there is the proble drone. If you think this is too limited and gets used up by shooting it, answer the question 'where ya gonna get all the probes to shoot off that rail?'. If you want something with staying power (not expendable as a drone) stick a sensor pod on the fighter.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 12:11 am: Edit

Bingo.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 01:10 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Robert Cole:

Correct me if I am in error, but I thought J2 had already ben published...gee, I just checked the Starfleet Games home page store...and J2 is there...Have to admit that you have me confused as to what your point is about working on J2.

---

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 02:21 am: Edit

I meant A-10M, sorry.

By Gordon Prokap (Dh123) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Stupid question; are A10 fighters limited the the Federation CVA or could other carriers deploy them?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 01:21 pm: Edit

A-10 fighters are purely limited to the CVA or specially equipped starbases.

And once the A-20F is available, they shouldn't even appear there.

The Federation, for whatever reason, did not subscribe to the widespread use of photon equipped fighters. As a result, photon equipped fighters will only be encountered very rarely. Even their primary heavy fighter, the Federation "answer" to the PF, (i.e. the F-111) used drones, not photons.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 01:41 pm: Edit

I would love to see a new A-10 carrier, its possible I suppose for the new CAV to carry those at somepoint.

Just a note: When the CAV SSD is designed I think it should remove some cargo in return for a AWR.

I also purposed a F-111 pod that would take up the bay space in return for giving it one photon that would work just like the A-10's.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Uh, by the F+E rules.

The Fed CVS w/ A20s is called the CAV.

If they make a A10F, undoubtedly it could fly from the CAV.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 01:52 pm: Edit

I suspect that the reason that the Federation did not subscribe to the widespread use of photon-equipped fighters is three-fold:

1. Rearming photon-equipped fighters is very expensive in terms of warp power.
2. The excellent drone-equipped fighters used by the Federation, with their gatling phasers and generous drone rails, were effective enough so as to make the A10 (and A20) unnecessary for almost any mission.
3. Successful use of a photon-equipped fighter requires closing to a range that can be rather unhealthy for the pilot, whereas drone-equipped fighters have a much greater stand-off combat capability. The Federation tries to avoid casualties when possible (one of the reasons they didn't go down the interceptor/fast patrol ship route).

By Gordon Prokap (Dh123) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Forgive my ignorance as my SFB fleet battle experience is limited, by how threatening are drone waves on a floating map?

By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Gordon: That depends on several factors, including drone speed and the available drone defenses of the squadron opposing the drone fleet. Fast drones available in quantity are horribly ugly, especially for races with poor drone defenses (Andromedan, for instance). Even if, for instance, a Gorn fleet merely turned away from a wave of medium speed drones and ran them out, that would give a pursuing force of Kzinti or Klingons several turns of essentially unopposed sniping with DF weapons.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 10:29 pm: Edit

As a rule of thumb, slow drones are useless on a floating map except as an overrun deterrent. Medium speed drones will require manoeuvre and/or significant resources to deal with, especially by non-war construction, and can sometimes do useful damage or set up good direct shots (all drone users also have long range direct fire). Fast drones are extremely deadly and are probably the best value upgrade in the game.

By Don Sample (Kailae) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 01:09 am: Edit

Die Hard: For entertainment value, sit down sometime and figure out how many drones that a kzinti SSCS can chuck. That's on board racks, fighters, and PF's all at the same time. Plus escorts (unless it is operating against the andy RTN network). Make them all speed 32 and see if being on the recieving end is fun. Remember, these drones do nice things like lead track, plus their AI is a bit better than what you or I would be normally used to.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 06:09 pm: Edit

I don't think the ZDF/ZD-G is a fighter the Klingons would have bothered to design. DF fighters have problems against ISC Echelons (when the ISC is run well--even stingers can have problems, although nubmers make them at least workable). Basically, the fighters have close too close to the gunline to hit core ships (with range 10 weapons) and are almost always killed before they can get in range. The gunline (and core) has a lot of F-torps which are perfect for killing fighters before they reach firing range. Even if the fighters go after the gunline, they'll die in droves (met by F torps at range 10/11 before they can fire). PFs are a much better attrition unit against the ISC.

I honestly don't see a problem with disruptor fighters being weak. Something has to be weak the weakest DF fighter and disruptor ones don't need to be good. In many ways, its just the nature of the weapon (and fighter deployment philosophy).

I also agree with those who don't like the RALAP.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 07:52 pm: Edit

David. While I agree that Stingers can't easily hit the mainline, its pretty easy to get range 10 to the gunline without getting hit by strength 15 F-torps. Put a Ph-G into a 10 strength torp and then run right through it.