I thought of this about 2 hours ago. I'm sure it will need to be fleshed out. But thats what the board is for.....right?

This is a new type of Merv option for scatterpacks. When a scatterpack is launched you record it as staggered and the interval of staggering. Once the scatterpack reaches the launch range of a target it will start to release its drones. Depending on how the scatterpack is set depends on how long this option takes. Launch 1 drone per impulse, 1 drone every other impulse, ect.

*Example* A Klingon D7 launches a scatterpack with 6 speed 20 drones programmed to stagger launch 1 every other impulse at a Fed CA. After the usual scatterpack conditions are met. The scatterpack starts to merv. The first impulse of merving is 15, so one drone is launched on impulse 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, and finally 25.

Once the scatterpack starts to merv it stops moving. During this time if the target leaves the FA firing arc of the SP or reaches a range of 1 of the SP before all drones stored within are launched, the Scatterpack becomes inert.

A staggered scatterpack can not be launched balisticly.

I hope this is a unique idea, but after 25 years of the game being around, thats almost impossible.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:53 pm: Edit

Uhhh... MERV?

I think this proposal needs a different name. I'm guessing you got the name from MIRV - Multiple Independently targetted Re-entry Vehicles. But how does "Re-entry" figure into this? Is "MERV" an acronym? If so, for what? Why not just call it a "staggered-launch scatterpack", or something like that?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 01:09 am: Edit

I think the idea is good but not fair.

T-bombs just became less useful.
WW suddenly force the hand of the defender for longer.
Drone chuckers just got a btter way to mizia their targets.


Admittedly ADDs just got better.


I think there should be some kind of penalty for these basic advantages, more than just if the SP gets to R1 or closer.


Try, the SP needs to keep the drone exhaust from detonating the warhead detonators of the other drones. The way that was found to do this was to mount the drones further away from each other than regular SP drone mountings.
This halved the number of drones of that could be launched from the SP with respect to the type of drone mounted ( that is calculated as each drone taking up twice the regular space).
Thus you could only mount 6 type VI drones on a staggered drone SP.
Three type I drones on a staggetred SP.
And you could mix the drones, such as a type IV and type VI ( filling all six spaces of drones ) in an SP. Or two type I and two type VI drones taking up the six spaces in the SP.

BTW I was playing scorched earth against my brother yesterday. Gotta love the MIRV and the Death's Head.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 08:31 am: Edit

Staggered-release, eh? Interesting concept. It does alleviate the "all in a stack" thing for those who want to spread the drones out a bit without much fuss, and does so at the cost of announcing that the thing is a scatterpack while all but one drone are still on board.

What happens if the thing is damaged but not destroyed during the release period; does it release the remaining drones all at once, continue a staggered release, stop functioning, etc.?

As an aside, this would give a "spread out" option to folks using mapless miniatures play (where there is true seeking weapon tracking and no sideslips and thus it is extremely difficult to spread out drones from a scatterpack targetted on a single unit).

I like it.

---

Quote:

I think the idea is good but not fair.

---

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 11:37 am: Edit

If you don't ever actually read anything, and just listen to people talk, then you get MERV instead of MIRV.

It's sort of like the time in Warhammer 40K, where someone put "A Blate Of Armor" on his vehicle. We asked him what that was, and he replied "you know, it's that kind of armor where it scales away under the attack and reflects its force...ABLATIVE ARMOR!"

(And don't get me started on "ordnance/ordinance".)

Oh, the proposal? If you want to spread the drones out, you could waive the "target in FA" requirement, and have four of the drones launch at 120-degree angles to the target. Say, the target is in Direction A, two drones launch that way, two drones in Direction C, two drones in Direction E. First movement impulse, they have to HET and face the target. Maybe it's a Klingon-only invention (because they often wind up using scatter-packs defensively against Kzinti drone spam.)

What would this proposal do if the drones were multiple types? Do you have to record which drone launches when, or is it random? Scatterpacks could become extremely annoying, where you don't even know how many drones you have to deal with, let alone what types they are. If I see eight drones come out of a scatterpack, I at least have some idea that my opponent is playing silly buggers with dogfight drones...

This would also make the "Darkfire" extremely easy. Impulse A, launch a dogfight drone at the cloaked Romulan. Impulse A+1, launch all the rest of your drones, targeted on the dogfight drone.

By Barton Pyle (Bart) on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 12:16 pm: Edit

So I misspelled Mirv, All reference to MERV should be Mirv....jeez

"Jessica" What happens if the thing is damaged but not destroyed during the release period; does it release the remaining drones all at once, continue a staggered release, stop functioning, etc.?

I was thinking that it would continue staggered release. No premature Mirving. Which adds a major disadvantage to this option I think.

"Michael Powers" What would this proposal do if the drones were multiple types? Do you have to record which drone launches when, or is it random.

I would think the only fair thing would be to have everything written down at the time of the scatterpack launch.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Barton Pyle,

I think you misunderstand my main objection to the name - probably because I stated it poorly. Why call it a MIRV at all? MIRV is an acronym with the "R" standing for re-entry, as in re-entering the atmosphere after exo-atmospheric flight. What are the drones "re-entering"? Whether you spell it with an "E" or an "I", why would this term be used at all to describe this system? That's what I don't understand.

By Barton Pyle (Bart) on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Ok Alan, the group that I have always played with called the release of a SP or Multi Warhead drone MIRVing. We have been calling it MIRVing for 20 years and never really paid it any mind as to what MIRV really stood for. Staggered Scatterpack works for me.

But this takes us off the subject a bit.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 03:28 pm: Edit

I agree with Jessica, this is an interesting option, it adds an option, but that option is very non-trivial to use and adds significantly to the risk that not all of the drones will get out before the shuttle is destroyed (can you think of many targets that would be higher on the priority list then a known scatterpack that has 5 drones left on board?)

especially since the current use of sideslips to spread drones is really an abuse of the limits of a hex grid system (as Jessica also points out)

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 08:14 pm: Edit

>I would think the only fair thing would be to
> have everything written down at the time of
> the scatterpack launch.

You know, I was just saying to myself the other day that SFB would really be improved if there were more record-keeping involved in play, it really doesn't seem focused on minutiae the way it ought to be.

(I realize that this is a somewhat flippant reply, but I can't really see how it would improve play to have yet another thing to keep track of.)

By Barton Pyle (Bart) on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 08:42 pm: Edit

Yes, I understand totally. There is a ton of record keeping involved but this seems like something minor. You already have to write down whats in the SP anyway, so whats so hard by putting a number behind the drone type? You still have a choice not to launch the SP as a staggered SP.

It may or may not be useful in play. I have no idea....But it will look scary.

By William Curtis Soder (Ghyuka) on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 08:53 pm: Edit

Would ya look at this. I go out of town to handle a family matter and come back to all this. I think I'll just belly up to this bar and let'er rip.

Bart: This is a pretty cool idea and is far easier to impliment in the game than most proposals. I could see some people wanting to be able to launch a small group of drones from the scatter pack and stagger the rest or have them accept different targets with each launch step. I'd suggest restricting staggered launch to only one option to prevent abuse (perhaps every impulse).

MJC: Why in the world would the exhaust detonate the other drones? That's just plain stupid. If we follow this logic, then whenever I launch a drone off of my fighter or from a rack on my ship, it would detonate the remaining ones left.

Alan: I understand your misunderstanding with the MERV/MIRV thing, but you have to understand where he got this concept. It came from a guy we played with (who will remain nameless) who pronounced 'hover' as 'hoover' and was afraid to raise his ESGs because the oncoming drones might down the fields (which is why I hate Lyrans to this day). We still to this day use the comments and don't really take into account the specific meaning but the implied one or the action involved (ask him about 'drone-pong').

Micheal: SFB is loaded with record keeping to enforce fair play. If ya don't wanna write it down, I guess the solution is not to use it yourself personally. I personally think the recordkeeping for drone construction is tedious but a pal I know who's an accountant thrives on it and can whip up a loadout that would boogle a cray supercomputer. I'd consider it the price to pay for the added flexibility of the staggered scatterpack.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 09:23 am: Edit

---

Quote:

MJC: Why in the world would the exhaust detonate the other drones? That's just plain stupid. If we follow this logic, then whenever I launch a drone off of my fighter or from a rack on my ship, it would detonate the remaining ones left.

---

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 10:52 am: Edit

MJC,

1. Fighters are lighter (and less bulky) than admin shuttles; it is this (along with better engines) that permits them to move so much faster and to maneuver so much better than a standard administrative shuttle.

2. Fighters have limited drone loads because of a number of factors, one of which is mass. Note the examples of the Gorn G12D and G18D; the additional mass resulted in a reduced dogfight rating (R6.F8). The limitation does not appear to be one of clustering; the illustrations of various drone-armed SFB fighters over the years have shown drones mounted right next to each other, and craft such as the F15 (with eight drones) would virtually require such mounting.

3. As noted above, admin shuttles are bulkier than a fighter, and thus have enough surface area to spread out scatterpack drones somewhat; the illustrations of scatterpacks in various products seems to bear this out.

4. You're just wrong, and are trying to talk your way out of it.

By William Curtis Soder (Ghyuka) on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 07:06 pm: Edit

MJC,
Nice try but I don't buy yer technobabble at all. Jessica beat me to it but I was just saying to myself most of the things she pointed out. Who says that the drones don't have safety interlocks in which the warheads are not armed until they reach a certain distance from launch? Therefore, following my logic, the exhaust could not detonate the other drones. This is not a stretch considering that this is in place with a lot of our modern weapon systems used today. Ya see, if I take the time, I can babble up my case too. The point is that SFB proposals should be about proposing balanced items to place in the confines of the game system to make it more enjoyable to the players. Not about the technobabble which we really only assume as we are not residents of this time period. Micheal Powers stated a definate concern that actually matters to the game and not some hyped up excuse. He pointed out a problem with the proposal and it was discussed so that this proposal could mature and hopefully become good enough for the rules published. What you should have done instead was point out that you feel that the staggered scatterpack was too powerful and needed more limitations. Point out how this could be abused and your possible solutions to that problem.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 09:37 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Who says that the drones don't have safety interlocks in which the warheads are not armed until they reach a certain distance from launch? Therefore, following my logic, the exhaust could not detonate the other drones.

---

---

Quote:

Ya see, if I take the time, I can babble up my case too.

---

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 09:10 am: Edit

MJC, the staggered-release scatterpack already has -- as a number of folks have pointed out -- the built-in penalty of announcing exactly what it is on the release of the first drone, giving the opponent the opportunity to kill it before it can release any more. That's penalty enough; it simply doesn't need any more penalties. No technobabble required.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 06:55 pm: Edit

It might be penalty enough for those that launch the StaggeredSP before the enemy's primary fire point but not for those who use the StagSP as a Coup de Grace weapon, where in it will be quite a bit more powerful than a regular SP because the target must stay under WW longer and T-bomb based defenses ( less common if the shield is up??? ) become less effective as well.


The WW is already one of the most dangerous weapons in the game, making it slightly more dangerous without some kind of penalty above; "well good players who saw it as a regular SP are going to blow it away with the weapons they were holding to fend off the drones" which just isn't enough of a penalty.


The good players will hold some phasers and kill the stagSP as soon as it shows it'self to be a stagSP theory will be blown out of the water, the instant someone loads a single type VI ( or I if within Lab range ) drone into a second SP and it launches its load prior to the actual StagSP launching anything.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 09:47 pm: Edit

MJC, using a staggered-release scatterpack as a close-in "Coup de Grace" has its own built-in problems. The target may well maneuver out of the thing's forward arc, depriving you of a full release. Also, a standard scatterpack can still manage a drone spread of some sort so long as you aren't on a hex row with it...if a scatterpack is launched close enough in to effectively eliminate the possibility of spreading the drones a bit if it were a standard scatterpack, it's probably within range to tag with that T-bomb you're so fixated on if it turns out to be a staggered scatterpack. Not to mention that against a Klingon or a refitted Fed (or a D-torp equipped Gorn or Rom), the staggered scatterpack is just making things easier for the defense gunner.

You can try to twist it however you want, MJC, but the simple fact of that matter is that this proposal isn't a balance killer, no matter how much you dislike it. It simply lets someone do something with a slightly different flavor, and does so with a minimum effect on both balance and complexity of play. And to be perfectly blunt, it's one heck of a lot more balanced than the whacked out proposals that you've persisted in vomitting forth here (True Disruptors, Funky Drone of the Week, etc).

By Barton Pyle (Bart) on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 10:14 pm: Edit

"Jessica" I thank you for the defense of this post. It is much appriciated. Do you or anyone have any other suggestions pertaining to the Staggered Scatterpack that may help in its design? Any more questions?

If not I would guess that the next stage of development would be to attept to write a formal rules section for it, and then post that here for futher review.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 10:49 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

You can try to twist it however you want, MJC, but the simple fact of that matter is that this proposal isn't a balance killer, no matter how much you dislike it. It simply lets someone do something with a slightly different flavor, and does so with a minimum effect on both balance and complexity of play. And to be perfectly blunt, it's one heck of a lot more balanced than the whacked out proposals that you've persisted in vomitting forth here (True Disruptors, Funky Drone of the Week, etc).

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Barton;

I agree with Jessica that this is in no way a "balance killer", but it does slightly improve the usefullness of scatterpacks since the owner has the option of using it in staggered or normal mode and can presumably decide which is more appropriate to the situation. It might therefor be reasonable to give the capability a minor BPV cost, just as the Klingons have to pay BPV if they want to give UIM to a ship that doesn't have it as standard, or the Gorns have to pay extra if they want sabot capability for their plasma torpedos. This might be justified by saying that the capability requires a minor modification to the shuttlecraft themselves.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 11:13 pm: Edit

The more I think about this proposal, the more I like it. My intial dislike was more due to uselessness than any overpowering aspect (I still think it falls in the category of mostly useless, but the difference between mostly useless and completely useless is important).

There are a few issues I think need to be carefully thought about. The first is that I think the pack needs to release one drone per impulse (being able to release multiple drones per impulse is much too powerful, as is a number of other interesting variants--eg 4 drones every 6 impulses). I can see allowing one drone every other impulse (mostly if introduced early for use with slow/moderate speed drones).

I think the rules will be much too messy if this works with random targeting.

The rules for how damaged SP operate when in this mode need to be carefully thought out and explicitly stated (I'm not sure what the right answer is here).

I'd suggest that a control channel needs to be dedicated to the SP until the last drone is launched (this has the side effect of explicitly indicating the type of SP and when the last drone is launched).

With the above direction, I think the concept is self balancing and doesn't really need a BPV cost assigned. The main benifit of the mode is to weaken T-bomb drone defense (at a significant risk if the opponent was planning on a different defensive mode, since it enhances all other types of drone defense) and IMHO, T-bombs are marginally under priced, so this is acceptable.

I see this as being used primarily in squadron actions, especially against fixed targets (it makes for a nice minefield clearing stream).

By David Lang (Dlang) on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 11:27 pm: Edit

David K, actually I'm not sure there need to be that many restrictions on it.

if you allow the programming to be as flexible as the players are willing to take the time to define then you keep it simple in normal games and increase the threat a little to make up for the vunerability (that shuttle just launched three drones, are they type IV drones or just type I drones with more to launch in a few impulses...)

the restriction of the SP being stationary and only having a FA threat arc limits it quite a bit.

also I didn't think you could detect the number of drone control channels in use (I could easily be wrong on this one)

another very good possibility is to try things as-is and keep the flexibility of tightening or loosening the restrictions based on the usefulness (or lack thereof) of this mode)

as this would just be a release timer that anyone could use on a scatterpach (which has no BPV cost as you create them during the scenerio) I don't think that charging BPV for this option makes sense

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 09:18 am: Edit

What year in service would the staggered release scatter pack be available?

I know the original post specified speed 20 drones which would place it close to the start of the General War, but I didnt see when the device actually could become useful...

As far as the interval of staggering... could you "merge" the scatter pack release schedule? (I mean, instead of the example above where the interval of staggering is recorded.... could you release 1 or 2 single drones then "dump" the rest of the drones (say up to 4 spaces worth of drones) so that the group of 4 drones follows 2 "path breakers" that would detonate any TB's that are in the way or are deployed in the drones mostlikely path?

If this advance were delayed until after the General War, it would be well into the fast drone era, and hence more effective...if it were developed at the same time that the original scatter pack was designed, it would be less useful (due to the slow drones speeds in use) but could have some application in tactical situations.

I think this is a good idea worthy of playtesting.