Fighter 'bomb' ordnance
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: New Rules: (J) Shuttles and Fighters: Fighter 'bomb' ordnance
By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 04:29 am: Edit

Reading through the designer's notes of my MRB, I came across an interesting comment that got me thinking. Somehow I had missed the notes in Module J, but that's what it is from.

Z12.2 reads (in part):

Quote:

In trying to place a game about 23rd Century combat using a 20th Century mentality, perhaps nothing has suffered more than the "fighter-shuttle". Such shuttles were designed and intended to be simple firepower platforms that could be carried on board a ship.
....
A single A-6E could, in 1983, carry three 2000# laser-guided bombs, any one of which would be more than capable of crippling a destroyer or frigate...Yet, in the STAR FLEET UNIVERSE, a single A-10 could score at most 12 points of damange....


Anyway, like I said, it got me thinking.

First, I don't think fighters in SFB *are* that much underrated. Against an unshielded target that does nothing to defend itself, a pair of Type-I drones will do very much to a Fed DD what an Exocet does to a Spruance-class destroyer. Hurt it badly, maybe mission kill, but not 'sink' it. And let's not talk about Type-IV drones.

In short, I think the 'missiles' (while a little weaker than 'modern' missiles) stack up pretty well.

Where there is a shortcoming, though, is in other ordnance. A fighter uses an ASM in anti-ship work to get a missile kill, not to sink it (as they rarely have that ability unless big enough to launch from a bomber).

Again, presuming an unshielded and undefended target, what is needed is a weapon to fit the role of a 'bomb', so, I propose....

(FB0.0) PHASED-ENERGY GUIDED MUNITION

(FB1.0) GENERAL RULES)
The PEGM is a weapon that is largely warhead, no propulsion system is provided, although a primitive seaker head is on the device along with some circuitry designed to manipulate warp fields slightly. In essence, this allows the weapon, when delivered at point blank range, some ability to hit a target at warp.

(FB1.1) OPERATIONS)

(FB1.11) CARRIAGE: The PEGM is a weapons system carried on fighter launch rails. Ships can never carry this weapon.

(FB1.12) LOADING: PEGMs are loaded on the launch railes by deck crews under the same procedures as drones. PEGMs come in 2 different sizes, a Mk44 full size version (single-space weapon for storage purposes) and a Mk41 half size version (half-space weapon for storage purposes). The rails for PEGMs do allow two half-sized weapons to be mounted on a "special", or "heavy" rails. Type-I drone rails can only carry a single weapon of either size.
(FB1.13) COST: Replacing a type-I drone with a PEGM is done at no cost (and produces no cost savings). Replacing a type-III with 2 half-sized PEGMs is also done at no cost.

(FB1.2) COMBAT
PEGMs can be released (or 'fired') during the Seeking Weapons Stage 6B6 of the Impulse Activity Segment of each turn.

(FB1.21) CONDITIONS: In order for a fighter to release a PEGM, several conditions must be met:
* The target of the attack must be size class 4 or larger
* The target of the attack is in the fighter's FA firing arc
* The fighter must be in the target unit's hex at the time of launch
* The fighter must perform a CCM maneuver on the target unit the IMPULSE BEFORE eligible for firing. IE., impulse 4 the fighter moves into the target ship's hex. Impulse 5 it is eligible to perform CCM, and does. Impulse 6, in the 'Direct-Fire Weapons' segment (6D2), it may release a PEGM at the target.

(FB1.22) PROCEDURE: The PEGM is fired as a direct-fire weapon. It hits on a roll of 1-4, with the following modifiers:
+1 target is size class 3 or larger
+2 target is size class 2 or larger
+3 target is size class 1 or larger
-4 there is no weapons lock on the target by the firing unit
(FB1.221) The PEGM is effected by EW (natural, generated, and loaned) as direct fire weapons are.
(FB1.222) The PEGM is degraded in effectiveness by cloaking devices (G13.37)
(FB1.223) The firing unit may release up to 1 PEGM per launch rail during the firing step, up to and including the total number of PEGM weapons carried by the fighter. These releases may occur simultaneously.

(FB1.23) DAMAGE: The damage done by the PEGM varies depending on the size of the weapon used:
Mk 44 (full-size) - 24pts
Mk 41 (half-size) - 12pts
(FB1.231) All damage done by PEGMs in an impulse is treated as a single volley

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 06:02 am: Edit

Not bad, you thought out the "time of drop" problem by requiring an R0 release...how does an R0 ESG interact with the bombs?


Actually I'ld through in a direct hit rule...if the sheild through which the bomb is dropped is down at the impulse point of the announcement of fire, then the there is a +1 die roll modifer making it harder to hit the target but the damage is doubled ( you need to seriously offset the effort of going to R0 ).

Also you should give the Hydrans and plasma boys something...I'ld say they can drop bombs from their fighter rail ( the one they put their Ph-3 pods on ).

I'ld also allow multiple bombs to be dropped in the same impulse, probably in a narrow volloy only. Perhaps a narrow volley only and the proximity of the bombs dulls the damage of each bomb past the first of 50% of it's damage thus four bombs would inflict 24 x ( 1 + 3 x 0.5 )=> 60 points of damage.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 07:04 am: Edit

Nah.

This means that any race's fighter becomes like a hydran fighter when it gets to R0. I don't buy it. Hydrans only please.

I mean - an F14 fully kitted out with these things can do what? 120+ damage in one impulse? with no phaser defence.(I know the IIIs can be launched all at once, maybe a I as well)

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Yeah, see, that's the thing. It's not really a huge increase in fighter effectiveness. Heck, a radio controlled fighter can do the same thing already, or a fighter scatterpack. These weapons are only really double the damage of a drone. Granted, you can't defend against the WEAPON...but tell me 6 drones inbound is easier to destroy than it is to cripple an F-14 at range 0.

Also, consider the R0 penalty. The fighter must enter a ship's hex (which, granted, it can do an impulse both of them move)....but it must also be in the same hex for the next 2 impulses to fire the weapon! If the ship is going anything above speed 16, that opportunity simply won't ever exist - and at 16, it only happens once a turn.

Also, THREE impulses at range 0? Even a ship *without* Aegis can afford to play the 'fire and observe' game with a fighter. Also, recall that performing CCM means that the impulse performed, any weapon on the ship can fire on the fighter, regardless of arc.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Several typos in the above:

Quote:

Where there is a shortcoming, though, is in other ordnance. A fighter uses an ASM in anti-ship work to get a mission kill, not to sink it (as they rarely have that ability unless big enough to launch from a bomber).



Quote:

-1 target is size class 3 or larger
-2 target is size class 2 or larger
-3 target is size class 1 or larger
+4 there is no weapons lock on the target by the firing unit

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 02:11 pm: Edit

If you are serious about this, I'd 1/2 the damage as DavidK states, on fighters with high number of drones, this is murder.

Alternatively, I'd double all damage that is done when carrying them (essentially making them kamakazi fighters), technobabble that it sets them off prematurely. ADD's would then hose a single fighter trying to use this, but not 3-4.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Just restrict it to heavy fighters and bombers only; no putting it on F14's, F18's, or what have you. A speed reduction for carrying something like this might also be applicable...fighter bombers are typically slower than superiority fighters or interceptors.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 04:06 pm: Edit

Except that Bombers can't use CCM (J14.223).

I'm not really convinced that this bomb is needed. Drone-armed fighters are mainly used as drone launching platforms, and once those are empty, they land and reload. They are not well spent trying to close to range 0 with the enemy. Direct fire fighters have little in the way of drones and agian, are not spent very well by trying to close to range 0. Hydran fighters ARE spent well by trying to close as close as possible with the enemy, but cannot mount drone weapons, which would count this item out. It's not their style.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 07:27 pm: Edit

I would like to say that limiting the targets to SC 4 or larger really isn't fair, it would be better to just have a snowball's chance of hitting SC5 and even less of hitting SC 6 targets...but look out if you do hit...that way you make attacks on ground targets with the weapons ( such as tanks ) possible.

Strikes on a tank from a bomb dropped by a Mustang in WWII would kill the tank if it was a direct hit, so too one should be able to hit SC6 targets with the weapons.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 09:37 pm: Edit

Quote:

Strikes on a tank from a bomb dropped by a Mustang in WWII would kill the tank if it was a direct hit, so too one should be able to hit SC6 targets with the weapons.


Yeah, but there is already ground-based 'dumb bombs' for fighters (E20.36), and those rules seemed to work fine, so I figured that took care of the ground-attack element.

These were more for specific anti-ship missions.

Some techno-babble explanation follows, like its use of a warp bubble to adjust its flight plan causes it to immediately fail in an atmosphere or something.

(Although, for a fun new rule worth another thread...curious the absence of hydrogen or anti-matter bombs for planetary attack, no? Would think they would be quite effective against enemy troops if you didn't care about the state of the planet afterwards.)

Quote:

If you are serious about this, I'd 1/2 the damage as DavidK states, on fighters with high number of drones, this is murder.


I don't really want to do that, because I can't think of any 'game reason' it should. Presuming a Type-I drone fits the same role as a modern Harpoon, I wanted to have these fit the same role as the Mk84 and Mk82 bombs. At the same one-per-rail restriction as a Harpoon, the Mk84 has FOUR TIMES the warhead size.

So, what are the differences that prevent a Mk84 from being used every time, all the time by fighters against enemy ships in lieu of the Harpoon? Well, one, you have to fly *over* the target. Secondly, even with CCRP radar targetting, it's still unguided and might miss, while the Harpoon will always hit (assuming the target does nothing to prevent it).

AFAIK, those are the only real disadvantages of a 'dumb' weapon today vs a missile.

And, I think the way the proposal is structured now, those disadvantages apply pretty accurately.

Hmmm...but, that does get me thinking, though. If you were dropping more than 1 weapon at a time all at once....several of them are just going to miss a target as small as a ship....How about this?

Quote:

-1 target is size class 3 or larger
-2 target is size class 2 or larger
-3 target is size class 1 or larger
+2 for every PEGM released per impulse, incrementing after each hit
+4 there is no weapons lock on the target by the firing unit



So, for example if simultaneously dropped 4 of them on a B10, the first would hit on a die roll of 1-6. The second on 1-4, and, if it hit, the third on 1-2. Of course, if the second missed, the third would roll again at the same odds the second had. The fourth would roll on the same odds the second had (1-4) if the third missed, would roll on 1-2 if the third hit that time, and would have no chance of hitting if the first three had hit. And that's assuming no EW shift.

Now, yeah, that's a lot of damage. But, seriously, a B10 that lets a fighter get to range 0 to it for 3 consecutive impulses? Especially one that closed all that range without firing drones, thus almost certainly a bomb-carrier? I tend to lean towards "it deserves what it gets" for this....

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 02:39 am: Edit

Maybe it would be better to have some kind of table matching the HIT CHANCE with a multiplier to damage meaning a direct hit of "1" does a lot more damage than a barely hit roll of say 4.


Theoretically the drones should do a lot less damage than a bomb of the same CARRAGE REQUIREMENTS as a bomb is almost all warhead and a drone is almost all propulsion.

By Clark Chism (Cchism) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 08:46 am: Edit

How about this:
Mk 44 (full-size) - 18pts damage
Mk 41 (half-size) - 8pts damage

It's more than 1/2 size an' less than full size.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 06:04 am: Edit

MJC, you mean like, for damager per weapon:

roll released888888888888

roll1234567 8 
120181614121086
21816141210864
3161412108642
414121086421
51210864211
6108642111


Or, doing less damage (more options), a chart showing total damage done in the attack:
roll released8888888888888

roll12345678
12026323844505662
22025303540455055
31822263034384450
41821242730333639
51618202224262830
61617181920212223

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 10:21 pm: Edit

Yeah I was thinking along those lines.

But more like this:-

Die Volley
Result 1 2 3 4
Hit -4 20 30 40 50
Hit -3 18 27 36 45
Hit -2 16 24 32 40
Hit -1 14 21 28 35
Hit 12 18 24 30
Miss 0 0 0 0

Note; Attacks against unshielded ships have a +1 to hit penalty but inflict double damage.
Note too; rolls less than 4 less than the to hit number will use the "HIT - 4" result as that is considered a "direct hit".


I don't think there are any fighters that can narrow volley more than 4 drones so I left it at four but you get the drift...might make the damage a quater per additional bomb due to muffling, playtesting will prove if it works or not.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 10:27 pm: Edit

If you wanted to have the attacks not totally destroy the target vessel then might make the reduction for multiple strike to be continuously increasing.

Die Volley
Result 1 2 3 4
Hit -4 20 30 35 38
Hit -3 18 27 32 34
Hit -2 16 24 28 30
Hit -1 14 21 25 27
Hit 12 18 21 23
Miss 0 0 0 0

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit

I think I'd lean towards your first table. RE: 'totally destroy the target' - I think not, even then.

Even in the ideal case - 4 bombs dropped, hit-4 rolled...you are still only doing as much damage as an R-torp - not even an enveloper, at that!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 01:09 am: Edit

Well to be accurate a number of bombs striking at the same place would inflict a damage that was equal to the strength of the first bomb multiplied by the square root of the number of bombs.

Also if their was a 1-4 base "to hit" then a direct hit would be "hit -3".

So this is more accurate table.
"b" Represents the small bombs and "B" the large.

Die Narrow Volley
Result b B/bb Bb/bbb BB/Bbb/bbbb BBb/Bbbb BBB/BBbb BBBb BBBB
Hit -3 12 24 29 34 38 42 45 48
Hit -2 10 20 24 28 32 35 37 40
Hit -1 8 16 20 23 25 28 30 32
Hit 6 12 15 17 19 21 22 24
Miss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 04:32 am: Edit

Indeed, I like that chart a lot more than the ones I came up with.

A 'full' load of bombs does a serious amount of damage (akin to an R-torp)...but, the previous rules make it very hard to deliver.

Makes fighters a worthwhile threat again, in some limited cases.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 03:00 pm: Edit

A thought....that chart might need to be extended some...

After all, a fighter COULD put on a megafighter pack and add bombs to that, too. That'd give a lot of fighters 6 type-I racks.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 07:45 pm: Edit

But fighters are still restricked by the number of drones they can launch in an impulse.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 08:56 pm: Edit

That's the point of this system, though - it ISN'T restricted. That's why it would be useful over drones. I mean, for the marginal advantage in damage it offers over drones...if it were restricted to drone launch rates, it would make more sense for the fighter to simply close to drone launch range and fire the drones! The minimal increase in damage alone is not enough to compensate for the fact that the fighter now has to close to point blank range with an enemy capital ship to deploy its weapon, and then spend 3 impulses in the same hex with it! Those are pretty hefty penalties.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 09:43 pm: Edit

Firstly, the damage is massive...particularly if you have a downed shield and the +1 die roll penalty but double damage effect...but also because the weapons do more damage ( assuming they hit better than a mere HIT )...and also there is the fact that the drones can be shot down and the bombs can not.


Bomb launch rates would be restricted for exactly the same reasons as drone launch rates...if the launch rails can't handle the "Delta MV" of 5 launches then that is will be the same for a BOMB ( assuming the bombs weigh less than drones which the probably don't ) but if the targeting computer simply can not opperate fast enough to give the release order to more than four drone rails then the BOMBs will be restricted by that too.
Whatever the reason for the launch rate restriction it probably applies to the bombs.


A Direct hit from a pair of bombs on a ship with the sheild down would be 68 poinbts of damage which ain't bad for a fight, even the 48 damage of four drones from an F-14 doesn't quite reach that making an F-18 pretty deadly.


I would also like to commend an addition that the Dogfight ratio of each fighter be added as ECCM ( with negative results being able to create a shift of up to 2 ) to the attack calculations such that fighters that are highly manouverable are more able to drop bombs on targets than fighters that are not highly manouverable.


I'ld also like to put forward the removal of the requirement to be in the same hex as the target for three impulse and simple make it Close Combat Manouvers in the same hex as the target and then create what is in effect ECM for faster moving targets as that will be less clucnky and stop people moving at speed 16+ just because it'll give the "divebomber" a rock/sissors/paper error.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Quote:

A Direct hit from a pair of bombs on a ship with the sheild down would be 68 poinbts of damage which ain't bad for a fight, even the 48 damage of four drones from an F-14 doesn't quite reach that making an F-18 pretty deadly.



Ah! I had misread your chart. I thought you were showing the *total* amount of damage in a volley of a given size. Ergo, two bombs direct hit would only do 34 points of damage, not 68. (In fact, that makes more sense, doesn't it? I mean, why would individual bombs do more damage the bigger the volley? You'd think a much larger volley would introduce an element if innaccuracy - the bombs 'spread' farther - etc. A single bomb in a larger volley should do LESS damage than the same bomb dropped on its own, no?)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 07:46 am: Edit

No that was what I meant...two bombs would do a total of 34 damage and that that could be doubled if you used the "Direct Hit on unshielded target" rule I was backing.


The question is balance.
Bombs should be better than drones by the amount they are harder to deploy...that is all.

What I think is balanced and probably different to you...I think it would be better for an F-14 to come in fire a few drones to cover itself from defensive fire and then drop a bomb ( or maybe even a pair ) like a mustang in Korea firing off a few rockets at a ground target and then dropping a bomb on it.

To that end I would make multiple bomb strikes be less effective as the blast "smothers" the blast of other bombs, such that a spread of drones followed by a few bombs is the ideal plan.
If you go to an IF MY F-14 GETS TO R0 YOU DIE plan of action ( and 6 x 24 damage would do that ) then you get a massive Rock Paper Sissors failure as Monitors and Q ships suddenly become no win situations.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 12:38 am: Edit

Ah, I guess I was assuming the damage chart looked good as it was (IE., not 'direct hit on unshielded target' bonus) - they do enough damage to be...interesting.

As to firing the drones, then the bombs...I'd argue that the two weapons cannot be fired in the same turn. Or, at least, within 8 (?16?) impulses of each other. In modern fighters, the missile targetting and bomb targetting are two very different HUD and Radar modes - switching between them, then setting up the launch parameters for the new weapon, etc - takes time.

Quote:

If you go to an IF MY F-14 GETS TO R0 YOU DIE plan of action ( and 6 x 24 damage would do that ) then you get a massive Rock Paper Sissors failure as Monitors and Q ships suddenly become no win situations.



Well, as I noted, I rather liked the chart you came up above with the damage reduction per bomb as the salvo size increases. For example, on the 'Hit -3' line, a single bomb hitting does 24 pts of damage, yet, if the salvo is 4 strong, each only does 12 pts (for the total of 48). That's good - I like that.

As to 'Monitors and Q ships'....well, seriously, how viable SHOULD they be vs a carrier space wing's attack? Isn't that why, late way, they started sprouting fighters all over the place (fighter auxies in convoys, fighter packs for Monitors, etc) and planets have heavy fighter defenses?

Maybe there should be a rule that making a fighter bomb-ready requires a special targetting designator be mounted that costs some BPV. 5 per fighter? With the munitions 'free' upgrades to existing drones.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 02:23 am: Edit

Granted, I only read a few of the responses, but this does create an interesting alternative to the drone. I can see where a short range munitions would be a nice addition to the fighter-shuttle arena of combat. Even if it doesn’t gain acceptance for fighters, I can see where a fighter-bomber or bomber might make use of such ordinance.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 10:18 am: Edit

This is another ot the discussions that SVC said was under consideration for 'Extreme Measures'.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Xander, what is the status on this proposal?

Are you standing by the original? or would you consider changing it to reflect the charts and suggestions that were made subsequent to the last "official version" of your idea?

I am not asking that you change it, just restate what your proposal is, if it incorporates any of the ideas that were made.

Thanks!

Add a Message


This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.
Username:  
Password:

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation