Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board

Lyran ESG PF

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: New Ships: R11: LYRAN PROPOSALS: FOLDER: OLD LYRAN IDEAS: Lyran ESG PF

Subtopic	Posts	Updated
Archive through August 28, 2004	25	08/28 08:42pm
Archive through August 29, 2004	25	08/29 09:39pm

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Hmmm, if the Lyrans had unlimited funds they probably would have upgraded all their phaser-2s to phaser-1s, but...

One could also ask why the LDR could get away with putting 4 gatlings on their hulls when the Hydrans only have 2 per hull...

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit

A fleets worth of Stinger-2M against Bobcats? Bet on the Stingers.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:57 pm: Edit

Stewart Frazier: The LDR has a small fleet. Nothing like the Hydrans in numbers.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 12:16 am: Edit

MJC, you should read the definition of attrition sometime.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 07:47 am: Edit

MJC: Take a look at Lyran ships sometime. Specifically, take a look at those that have type-1 phasers, as opposed to those with type-2 phasers. You'll find that the P-2 is the weapon used on just about every SC4 ship, as well as the CW and its variants. If the Lyrans could afford P-1s for the vast fleet of PFs that they fielded, don't you think that, at the very least, the CWs and DWs would get them, too?

And refer to Cfant's post regarding your misconception of "attrition unit." As a certain 20th century wartime leader said, "quantity has a quality all its own."

Oh hell, why do I bother? You aren't going to listen here any more than you listen anywhere else.

By Stephen Brackett (Brak) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 07:53 am: Edit

Just as a note on the Lynx Tri-maran design. I once suggested something very close except that the PF kept the battery in the same position on the left and had one less APR.
However, Petrick beat me briskly about the head and shoulders with a blunt object over the FX disrupter. Something about starting an arms race between PF designs.

Andrew Harding: Had the Stinger2M vs. Bobcats experience last Friday. At a ten range the Bobcats took out one Hellion and did some shield damage to two others. The fighters did 20 internal to an NCA setting it up for the Hellborers. It wasn't pretty.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:21 am: Edit

Quote:
If the Lyrans could afford P-1s for the vast fleet of PFs that they fielded, don't you think that, at the very least, the CWs and DWs would get them, too?

That's a very good question...I think I already covered that same idea in the post I made as it is really just restipulating what you had written.
...See I was listening.

I can only see Ph-1s being mounted on PFs after Destroyers and Frigates if; ( and it's a big if ) the productivity of the prosectution of the war was increased more than mounting said weapons on more durable hulls.

There is also the possibility of ships having different phasers ( in the same way that the PFs have different engines ) such that a PF's Ph-1 was far more like a type VIII Swordfish's Phaser-1 than that of a Frigate, and thus the low durability phasers of PFs were given low durability Ph-1s that weren't placed on the small vessels because recalling said small vessels back to base as frequently as PFs would be counter productive on hulls that could otherwise sustain long duration missions...but perhaps that is reading way too much into the X rules.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:27 am: Edit

J.O.:

Quote:
That question ( coupled with certain technical questions and the question of the best application for said Ph-1s ) is the key to whether or not the Lyrans PFs would get upgraded phasers.

Yeah, I knew I was listening.

By Ken Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:55 am: Edit

If you compare Lyran PF's vs other races, it does have it's problems. But the Lyran's have a not so hidden advantage to thier PF's. Sure, everyone has been told how Lyran's can have more PF's than others. But very few of us have actually sat down and looked at how Lyran PF's can (and are historically) deployed.

I could list long examples, but I will try to show the differances in as few words as posible.

Lyrans put PF's on as many ships as possible(economically). This means you could see a patrol of 3xFF with a full casual flotilla. No other race does this. Also, Lyrans are the only race with casual PF tenders that have repair built in. Lyran's and Romulan's are the only races that can field 2 full flotillas under (S8.0) rules. And only Lyrans can put another casual flotilla on top of that. All Lyran Squadrens or Fleets will at least have a casual flotila. Anything with a DN or BCH will have a 1 Full PF flotilla, minimum. This all means that while they are weaker, Lyran PF's will usually outnumber yours 2 to 1.

I find that I personally get best use out of my PFs by countering enemy attrition units (PF's, fighters and drones.)

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 04:48 pm: Edit

GAH!! I read an MJC post and tried to make sense of it...and nearly composed a response as well...now I feel dirty. lol!

Man your rebuttal of cef's post on attrition units is just sad MJC. And wrong. If they were built to do what you see is 'the main point' of attrition units, then they would be called swarm units, or some such thing.

They were not built to do that primarily. They were built to win a war of attrition. Period.

By Gregg Dieckhaus (Gdieck) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 05:51 pm: Edit

During the doomsday process I tried in vain to convince Steve and Steve the Lyrans needed to have a PF with an ESG on it.

It was always rejected as not even negotiable.

I even went so far as to write up rules that were for ESG-L or ESG-Light that went on PF's. The crux of the rule was that the ESG could only go up at Range 0 and could only protect the single unit it was covering - it had no other ESG interactions. IE. Drones not targetted on a unit with an ESGL could move through the hex, hellbores would not be affected unless they were targetting the Unit - etc.

I still think it's a neat idea, good luck trying to convince them

Gregg

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Wait, I know. OK, you have this big thing that the PF can dock to and that has an ESG on it. It would have to have it's own engines but then the squadron would have an ESG to protect it...

er...

um...

Oh ya, we already have that.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 08:16 pm: Edit

Quote:
They were not built to do that primarily. They were built to win a war of attrition. Period.

All I can say is go read the Tactics Manual...I'm not the origninator of this concept...and yes they ought be swarming units or some such.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 08:39 pm: Edit

Loren, I know.

Ah, well...

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Bzzzt! Wrong.

Merely because you *can* swarm the enemy with attrition units (presumably when he doesn't have any to respond with himself) does not make that their primary role. Attrition units are designed for attrition warfare, plain and simple.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 01:25 am: Edit

SVC:

When you thought up the idea of attrition untis for SFB, were you looking for:-
A) Units that by their sheer numbers could overwhelm the defenses of conventional ships ( E.g. a full F-18 squadron can launch 22 type I drones in single turn ).
OR
B) Unit that could die easily but also be replaced cheaply focing the war to shift from a contests between militaries and more to a contest between ecconomies (E.g. a Fed AxCVL can deliver a full F-18 squadron to the carrier in a single journey ).
???

Let me guess...it depends on whether the answer is an SFB answer or an F&E answer.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 06:41 am: Edit

As I understand it - and I could be wrong - "attrition" units are not swarm units; but swarm units ARE attrition units. Attrition units can include fighters and PF's, but also include mines and, according to at least one source, war cruisers and war destroyers.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Exactly. MJC is missing the 3rd choice which SVC might very well answer with, is that they were designed to do both, although A)swarming is a direct result of the primary design purpose of B)attrition (warfare).

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