• If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 February and March 2024 are YE 46.2 in the RP.

Approved Submission Integrated CFS Array (Updated)

Toshiro

Well-Known Member
Submission Type: Update to Integrated CFS Array
Submission URL: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:integrated_cfs_array

Faction: Star Army of Yamatai
FM Approved Yet? No
Faction requires art? Yes

For Reviewers:
Contains Unapproved Sub-Articles? No
Contains New art? Yes (Just icons for barrier geometry charts, but also has existing art from original)
Previously Submitted? Yes; Andrew submitted and got the original version approved. My changes are newly submitted.

Notes: I have Wes and Andrew's permission to work on and update this interpretation of the CFS. Please note that the original implementation is still unaltered on the wiki at https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=stararmy:integrated_cfs_array for comparison. If approved, this variant will replace the one currently on the wiki.

This new version expands on the functions of Deflector Clusters, updates the Projected Energy Beams for DRv3, adds two new modes of barrier geometry and tables describing them, tables describing the impact of extending barriers, the inclusion of recent amendments/elaborations to standard CFS operation, a mode of FTL speed and direction modulation for purposes of evading a pursuing enemy, and a new method of warping space with the CFS to change the firing angle of weapons.

Please note that the Projected Energy Beams are re-imagined as having a Tier that is two below the equipped vessel's Defensive Tier and are defined as "Light Anti-Counterpart". This is something I am more than willing to amend if needed. I have also never made a DRv3 item before, so input on proper format is requested if mine is in error.

Also note that my calculations of barrier strength are based on the presumption that increasing a barrier's surface area without increasing energy output results in a corresponding decrease to barrier strength.
 
Last edited:
This suggestion has been implemented. Votes are no longer accepted.
FM approved for Yamatai.
 
One special area I would request careful scrutiny is Discharge Redirection. It is meant to let a vessel take its weapons and aim them more freely by curving the space in front of the weapon and changing the path of the discharge.. Normally it only works on secondary armaments, but the inclusion of additional components allows it to work on main guns like an Aether Shock Array.

While I definitely want to keep it for making turrets and secondary weapons more freely fired (and not require turret placement to change aesthetic to excess), I feel like I need careful scrutiny to make sure that widening the possible aiming options of an Aether Shock Array, for example, isn't OP.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to point out that the implied energy expenditure in the Discharge Redirection looks to be a very similar process as a barrier sustaining damage.

I'm no mod, but as the person behind DRv3, I don't mind this option provided it entails that opportunity cost. You'd basically choose to drain your barrier power by the damage of the weapon to have a firing arc you normally would not possess. However, I do think every application of the Discharge Redirection should carry its cost.

If, say, a Plumeria-class was gifted with this technology, it might fire its Light Anti-Capital Aether Shock Cannon and use the Discharge Redirection to entirely funnel it to its aft (usually impossible). This would inflict highly destructive damage to the barrier (a total drain of 150%), likely split 75% front and 75% back.

* * *

On a more personnal opinion basis, I think this is an excellently written article. I think its language leans a bit too toward proving how its better than the current tech (meaning that if it's approved and widely adopted, it'd need to be adjusted to refer less to previous tech and better than by its lonesome). But besides that, it has good tables, the diagrams are very nice, and if its goal is to modernize explaining how barrier systems work in the Star Army from now on, it nearly succeeds.

Again, on a personnal opinion basis, what kills it for me is how it crams in so many features and improves redundancy. CFS systems are usually central to a ship and while redundancy has happened in the past, it's been more experimental than anything else (and it malfunctioned easily). The usual flaw of something extremely miniaturized is that it's usually small, fragile and easily subject to stresses (think laptop vs desktop computer). Here, I just see stuff getting better and better with little caveats... and it eats at me to see something that was already powerful get perfected to such an extent.

If this wouldn't involve propulsion, stealth and the ability to project aether beams, I'd warmly endorse this.
 
Last edited:
I'm no mod, but as the person behind DRv3, I don't mind this option provided it entails that opportunity cost. You'd basically choose to drain your barrier power by the damage of the weapon to have a firing arc you normally would not possess. However, I do think every application of the Discharge Redirection should carry its cost.

If, say, a Plumeria-class was gifted with this technology, it might fire its Light Anti-Capital Aether Shock Cannon and use the Discharge Redirection to entirely funnel it to its aft (usually impossible). This would inflict highly destructive damage to the barrier (a total drain of 150%), likely split 75% front and 75% back.

I'm a bit confused as to the comment of 75% front and 75% back reference, as two-faced barriers aside from those on mecha aren't supposed to exist (and Wes upheld this when asked recently). I didn't think Plumeria had a six-faced barrier either. Am I in error?

I can amend Discharge Redirection (it's by no means iron-clad here), and a part of me likes your interpretation perhaps in the context of the main gun use. Unfortunately, a key point behind this is for the ship to use its point defense turrets more freely and not require them to be so intrusively placed on some designs. This may not be possible in all cases without damage that makes it impractical. The Plumeria's smaller turrets manage to be 4 Tiers below the shields, so it looks like it might work...until one realizes that the shots from the turrets across the hull could be considered cumulative. Also, if we fire a physical or encapsulated antimatter round, and it does the full damage to the ship's own shields...then the round's been depleted. Going strict "Do the same damage to yourself as the enemy" just means that the attack never reaches the enemy in the first place, right?

I suspect that a penalty for using it with the main gun makes sense, especially since it'd be more a desperation maneuver for specific situations, but I'm torn on smaller ordinance. Just where that boundary lies and what penalties exist, however, are open for discussion.

On a more personnal opinion basis, I think this is an excellently written article. I think its language leans a bit too toward proving how its better than the current tech (meaning that if it's approved and widely adopted, it'd need to be adjusted to refer less to previous tech and better than by its lonesome). But besides that, it has good tables, the diagrams are very nice, and if its goal is to modernize explaining how barrier systems work in the Star Army from now on, it nearly succeeds.

Modernizing and consolidating information on how barrier systems work is another serious attempt made here. I had to ask a lot of questions on how CFS worked in various situations, dig around to see what had been obsolesced and what hadn't, and piece together a lot of data. If there is something lacking, please be more specific so it can be corrected or improved further. As for the tone of the article, I was worried about a lack of uniformity. This is based on Andrew's article, which is in turn based on a yet older article, etc. I initially had a separate article for the updates, but once I realized I'd have to re-write a bunch of stuff for modernization anyway, I decided to just make one integrated article. And that article turned out thick on things.

Again, on a personnal opinion basis, what kills it for me is how it crams in so many features and improves redundancy. CFS systems are usually central to a ship and while redundancy has happened in the past, it's been more experimental than anything else (and it malfunctioned easily). The usual flaw of something extremely miniaturized is that it's usually small, fragile and easily subject to stresses (think laptop vs desktop computer). Here, I just see stuff getting better and better with little caveats... and it eats at me to see something that was already powerful get perfected to such an extent.

If this wouldn't involve propulsion, stealth and the ability to project aether beams, I'd warmly endorse this.

Andrew added the redundant aspects, but his implementation had the side effect of much finer potential control. The only real hardware change I made is the possible implementation of more Deflector Clusters to avoid one-shotting a ship by hitting a single vulnerable point (and aspects of a dedicated main weapon deflector cluster which at this point will likely be removed). The new modes of operation are meant to be forms of refinement after the tech languished for 4 years. Granted, this is meant as an explanation, not an excuse. At this point, I'm not sure how I can make an article about CFS that isn't wordy and thick without being incomplete...and I have trouble trimming down my articles' length to begin with.

Base CFS is always about propulsion, stealth, and aether beams to begin with. For those specific things, I feel like the result would be inferior if they weren't included. Stealth hasn't been upgraded at all. The propulsion upgrades are exclusively for evading a pursuing enemy at FTL speeds and have no offensive purpose whatsoever since FTL combat isn't a thing. Their intent is for a ship not to need the fastest FTL speed to avoid interception or ramming by an enemy. The Projected Beams are a holdover that is explained by weakening the CFS while they are used and an attempt to make them DRv3. The offensive application that's actually new is Discharge Redirection.

Which specific aspects are badly worded or excessive? Do you have additional recommendations or specific ways we can balance the Damage Redirection problem better while preserving its initial intent?
 
A Plumeria has a six-sided barrier. Most military ships from technologically advanced factions have the capability to deploy a six-sided barrier, which are the most powerful ones in terms of how much defensive power you can muster at present.

My allusions to the Discharge Redirection would be that the effort the barrier expends to redirect the shot is kind of equal to taking the hit. You're essentially sacrificing the barrier by using up the power on hot-standby to do your redirection. Since you're not actually impacting on any defense, your shot's damage potential hasn't been altered.

And yes, lesser types of weaponry will end up being far easier to redirect at significantly less cost than the bigger guns. However, in my eyes and as far as my perception of faction tech flavor goes, this should carry an opportunity cost. It should be a "trick up your sleeve" rather than the norm. Otherwise you obsolete the functionality of turrets on many existing KFY design with the aesthetic Wes chose for them.

Then again, treat my opinion on the matter assuming that such a detailed article is meant to be used in a mainstream fashion within the faction. If it is not and that it is meant to be an outlier (kind of like how secular Project THOUGHT was demonstrated to be like?) then please let me know.

* * *

I did not say the article was badly worded. I wrote that the article seemed to rest on the premise of "this is an improved system" over "this is a system". Meaning that it works as a document saying "this is why I'm better and should be adopted" but not quite as well as a standalone to be used as a reference. You'd be on a ship with the system, and you'd get on a very detailed page that does unveil a lot of detail but ultimately compels you to seek out what CFS is in the first place.

Most of us know. But a relative newcomer might not. So, I felt compelled to point out the matter of your target audience. It's not a super-huge flaw, but post approval, if fielded widely, it could become a concern.

* * *

As for my lukewarm reception of what the tech can do, I'll admit, I don't care about precedent. CFS tech was already a problem due to how polyvalent it was. Fortunately, Wes seemed to slowly inch that down. I see your effort as reversing that, so, I don't see that as a move in the right direction.

Bear in mind, Wes gave his FM approval. So, my argument is already invalid. That doesn't change that I personally disagree, though.

I think most of the cool tricks you want to do with this as still doable. However, I think defensive systems should go with defensive systems, and propulsion systems should go with propulsion systems.

What I think is that a companion article could be made where Yaichiro also overhauls the hyperspace drives. Most of what you have for the CFS that's related to faster-than-light travel could just as well be combined with the other piece of technology... that frankly, is kind of underdetailed anyways. It could easily see some things parallel between the two as well: the CFS can extend its barrier to cover other ships; the fold drive can deploy extend its umbrela for allowing other units to piggyback on fold jumps. The graphs can be the same - that's why I used the term "companion article".

To me, that would be innovation in a constructive direction. You'd be giving more redundancy to one system, while making sure that all the eggs weren't in the same basket. Wes also aired the desire - several times over the years - that he would like to see CDD travel folded into hyperspace travel (pun intended) but was stopped by the community 'not wanting it'. That could be an extra step in that direction, while still not impeding any detractors.
 
I thought Hyperspace was point-to-point all-or-nothing though...meaning that the entire FTL speed and course modulation would likely be impossible for it. The only real compatibility I see with hyperspace in the article is the extension of the hyperspace umbrella, and I don't know if that's governed by the same relationship between energy and surface area, or if that'd instead be between energy and volume. Thoughts?

It seems that we're getting to a call for a systemic full-setting change in this discussion...which while not necessarily bad, would probably need its own thread as well for all factions to discuss. Some aspects of that are simply outside the scope of what can be accomplished in this thread. I'd need to see some commitment and standardization to such an idea before I tore this submission apart or discarded it to cater specifically to that. Not that I'm unwilling to help develop Hyperspace a bit, when I'm a bit less brain melty from trying to re-define modern CFS and Aether drives.

The article's tone is something I'll have to try to rectify when I have more time to do so. It won't be tonight I'm afraid.

If the Plumeria has a six-sided barrier, it also means I'll have to remove the "six indepenedent power sources" requirement for that.
 
Last edited:
Full systemic whaaaa?

I mean... CFS creates barriers, projects energy beams, dunks a ship in a pocket dimension for stealth and probably some other stuff I'm forgetting as I type this in the wee hours of morning.

But by contrast it's hard to believe that for all the reality bending wonders the Fold drive does, it's only capable of hyperspace and not pulling double-duty with the "warp speed" CDD counterpart?

...

Regardless, I feel I've said enough on what I'm concerned is an unfair tangent on a submission (I'm actually surprised no one called me on it).

My thinking is that it's a shame to have this beautiful article achieve only "status quo+1" when it seemed at its foundation to offer leverage for positive changes. Of course, that means nothing if I'm the only one to think so.

Ultimately, little of what I said is relevant to the mods as far as approving this goes and @Wes already signed it off as FM. So, that'll be all from me.
 
Edit: I outright misinterpreted what you were saying, and I'm sorry for that.

Because part of the CFS article was deceptive as to how much propulsion came from the CFS and the CDD early on, and I missed a bit under propulsion, I thought that the CFS ALWAYS handled CDD function, and that Andrew's just continued it. Instead, Andrew's version of the Integrated CFS fully integrated them together in a new manner. Now what you were saying makes more sense.

My brain was too melty, it seems, and missed that detail...

Shall we de-integrate them again, and state that separate CDD are used instead of Deflector Clusters? Or that Deflector Clusters are used for some things but are inferior to true CDD? I feel like I'd have to get permission from him to downgrade that part of his article if it's desired.
 
Last edited:
I agree that weapon redirection is essentially shooting you own shields and is super wasteful.
 
If you ask me...

I think you could just grab piecemeal the things you worked on for this article and create another one if you're so concerned about slighting what you see as Andrew's former creation. The name could be as simple as "Type 39 Combined Field System" especially if you intend to promote mainstream application.

Then do the fold drive and integrate the propulsion functionality in it.

I can understand if you'd just want to focus on article approval. It - after all - already represents a lot of work. It's my belief that the direction I've suggested would retain not only the sense of reliability and quality you aimed for, but also avoid the pitfalls of seeming overpowered and achieve a change that'd be likely seen as 'visionary' in-character.
 
I'm not opposed to reworking something if necessary. The original idea was going to be something called "Variable CFS", but I felt like making Andrew's existing submission useful instead of just making one more CFS variant. The main questions I have at this point are:

1. Ships that were explicitly created without Hyperspace like the Chiaki are outliers which complicate the situation unless we add Hyperspace back in for some reason/define this new CDD Hyperspace module as more power efficient. How do we best handle this?

2. Power armor losing FTL capability would have to be a setting-wide change, not merely a factional one, because it invites notable disadvantage...I could recommend a new Micro CDD to let this system work without breaking faction-level PA function, but that doesn't seem to be the change you want.
 
1. As a concept, I agree, the Chiaki is incompatible. Creating new tech doesn't mean it gets adopted right away by everything that's currently in use. So, I think it's okay for the Chiaki to miss out. I mean, even if Yaichiro would complete such a thing, even if KFY likes it, they'll likely only deploy them on a few units at first to see how it pans out before going for more massive deployment. I think it's fine to let history be the judge - some things are duds, some are not.

2. What I can tell you is that Wes already aired he thought it was ridiculous to have FTL on power armor and already reduced all power armor CDD speed from 5000c down to 10c. Frankly, .3c alone is blatantly more than most power armor need, so, they're little harm in going along with the current in this case. Heck, Wes seems to want to increase power armor dependency on shuttles, so even 0.3c is too fast. removing FTL from power armor across the board is unlikely to make anyone cry about it once Wes has a 'valid' excuse to go for it.
 
Except that this valid excuse would only apply to Yamatai in this way. That's part of the issue. That and larger units like Mecha and larger Starfighters might want to keep FTL capacity...how would those issues be handled? Would Mecha and Starfighters also lose FTL capacity under a certain DRv3 Defensive Tier?
 
Last edited:
I dunno. But it doesn't feel relevant anymore in light of Wes' own input.

It seems silly to champion for someone who forgot the cause, so, I'm kind of inclined to just throw the towel. Sorry for having wasted your time.
 
I am following along, just looking until a solution comes up before I fully review myself.
 
Thanks, Fred. I will review it as I normally would, then.
 
Well, Fred's input regarding tone and actually including more descriptions of CFS function was a valid statement. I intend to resolve those issues regardless of the outcome of this.
 
Last edited:
Then go ahead and resolve those issues and get back to me, unless you want to make those revisions post-approval?
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top