Several special notes

1) SFU shuttles land much better than any wet navy equivalent. Even Harriers and Seaplanes.

2) Sure you can stack 4 skids to replace each cargo module and you have a BAD Aux CV (with more phaser 2s than usual bu tmissing lots of important features). Really it would be cheaper for more than a few fighters to just tote a CV/ CVL/CVA pod instead. And if you choose to do this, cargo capacity really drops through the floor.

3) I think that fighters really should have a split BPV like PFs anyway. SVC hasn't granted my silent wish and I am too shy to risk his wrath.

4) If I can legally take 2 skids with 3 transporters each (I can't remember which one is which) AND can buy 10 BPs, who is to say I don't use them as OFFENSIVE BPs vs a LR? I can transport 7 BPs over at combat rates from battery. SPP has already said HE always buys a bunch of BPs for his ships, so why shouldn't I?

5) There should be an easy way to transfer a few fighters "over yonder" for TOP GUN/ Red Flag competitions. Or for advanced schooling. Or to get a fighter to a slightly more advanced world for upgrades. Or to replace a fighter or 2 lost. LARGE planets with MANY MANY fighters might routinely have a few on "deployments" on freighters, to distant asteroid belt duties, aboard the local defense SkiffCVtiny... As my back story explained KK (the place these fighters came from) had a fairly extensive (if not exactly state of the art) defensive array, complete to bombers, ground bases, a minefield (small, but still there), a customs skiff and a orbital transfer station.

I really don't see this as a game breaker. Well, letting a freighter buy a mech link on each tractor and a pf might be the end of piracy, but the $ is different by orders of magnitude, in my opinion.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 05:21 pm: Edit

According to Cdr Rippon in "Evolution of Engineering in the Royal Navy", Volume 2, some 35 CAM-ships made about 175 voyages in two years - twelve were lost, eight catapult launchings were made, six enemy aircraft shot down and one RAF pilot lost

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2BritishShipsAircraftCarriers.htm#cam

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 07:04 pm: Edit

Joseph A. Carlson:

Is there any text in the article that says this bomber (B-26 or B-25) could be based from freighter, other ships, or even orbital bases as opposed to the normal restrictions on "bombers"?

Once you find that bit of text, we can talk. Until then, they are "bombers" even if they ". . . might technically be called a heavy fighter rather than a bomber". There is no special exemption from the restriction on these "bombers" operating from ships, hangar modules, or orbital bases. Lacking that, they are BOMBERS. The B-26 "kit" makes the HTS too big to operate from a shuttle bay, and the B-25 simply is (being a bomber). They have basically gotten into that 2.5 point range of the FB-111.

Michael C. Grafton:

I beleive I referenced the CAM and while I did not note (because I did not remember) the number of enemy aircraft they shot down, or that they made 175 voyages, I did note that there were 35 conversions, twelve were lost, only eight ever actually launched their fighters, and one pilot was lost. So I am not sure what point you were trying to make.

You also Said: "1) SFU shuttles land much better than any wet navy equivalent. Even Harriers and Seaplanes."

REPLY: True as far as it goes, but being able to land on a rougher field and in a narrower envelope does not mean that they do not require a heck of a lot more servicing and maintenance than those older birds.

You also Said: "2) Sure you can stack 4 skids to replace each cargo module and you have a BAD Aux CV (with more phaser 2s than usual bu tmissing lots of important features). Really it would be cheaper for more than a few fighters to just tote a CV/ CVL/CVA pod instead. And if you choose to do this, cargo capacity really drops through the floor."

REPLY: And the problem is that it is a lot of protection for a minor possibility.

You also Said: "3) I think that fighters really should have a split BPV like PFs anyway. SVC hasn't granted my silent wish and I am too shy to risk his wrath."

REPLY: I have no idea what you are saying here. Sorry. Fighters already have split BPVs, they just do not show on the Master Fighter Chart as it is just a rule entry, i.e., every fighter has an economic BPV of half its combat BPV which is listed on the Master Fighter Chart. And large and small freighters have split BPVs as well if you were talking about freighters as opposed to fighters.

You also Said: "4) If I can legally take 2 skids with 3 transporters each (I can't remember which one is which) AND can buy 10 BPs, who is to say I don't use them as OFFENSIVE BPs vs a LR? I can transport 7 BPs over at combat rates from battery. SPP has already said HE always buys a bunch of BPs for his ships, so why shouldn't I?"

REPLY: A large freighter can normally afford seven boarding parties as its commander's options. Fit it with two Skids (whether General or LASH) and a ducktail and its nominal BPV goes up enough to buy a full ten boarding parties with a point left over to buy a heavy weapon's squad or commando squad. That gives you 11 boarding parties to fight your battle. The Light Raider has eight boarding parties normally, and a BPV of 68, giving it 13 Commander's Option Points. After buying two T-bombs he has five points remaining, and may as well buy that extra ten boarding parties also. If he has the plus refit he can have the T-bombs, the ten boarding parties, and a heavy weapons squad. And if his weapon options add a few more points, he might get a second heavy weapons squad, so he might have 20 boarding parties to your eleven, plus he has four crew units available for duty as militia to your two (you have four non-boarding party crew units, two normally on the freighter and one added by each Skid) on the freighter. So the odds on the boarding battle are 24 to 13. The odds are that you are NOT going to win an "offensive boarding operation". You might delay that Orion a few turns (he will probably pull away to defeat your boarders before coming back in). There is also the problem that your attempt might just result in his using his batteries for General Shield Reinforcement to block your attempt (and his own simultaneous one we can assume) and get him really mad (but boarding him at all will likely make him really mad in any case). That math is enough to make me re-think the idea were I still a merchant captain (been a long time since I ran that Orion campaign), but partly because I try not to just get my people killed. Yes, I might try to board an Orion, but if I did, it would be because I thought my boys had A CHANCE TO WIN, not simply be abandoned by me to be slaughtered by the Orion. I am not real wild about sending people on suicide missions. So I will admit that if I was running a freighter NOW and had General Skids or LASH Skids and a Ducktail, I would be more inclined to keep my boys on the ship to defend it. Hope that help got there soon. And maybe, just maybe, try a hit-and-run raid or two if there was an opportunity (and that means that I was reasonably certain that he had less than two points of reserve power available).

You also Said: "5) There should be an easy way to transfer a few fighters "over yonder" for TOP GUN/ Red Flag competitions. Or for advanced schooling. Or to get a fighter to a slightly more advanced world for upgrades. Or to replace a fighter or 2 lost. LARGE planets with MANY MANY fighters might routinely have a few on "deployments" on freighters, to distant asteroid belt duties, aboard the local defense SkiffCVtiny... As my back story explained KK (the place these fighters came from) had a fairly extensive (if not exactly state of the art) defensive array, complete to bombers, ground bases, a minefield (small, but still there), a customs skiff and a orbital transfer station."

REPLY: Why? Other than the fact that it supports your concept, why? Of all the planetary defense units in the Empire (or the Federation, or the Hegemony, or etc., etc.) why is it necessary to have a "top gun school" that everyone needs to send a flight of four fighters to? That this happens often enough that these skids are a necessary adjunct and efficient means of accomplishing the task? That there are so many of these schools that there will be so many freighters going on to them that planets are constantly sending flights to them? The background does not fly.

As to freighters buying mechlinks and hauling around a PF, pretty much if any Freighter did that, it would be a cargo PF, not a combat variant. And if solitary large Freighters did start "self-escorting" with a PF, they would be shot to pieces by the Light Raiders dragging a pair of Brigand Interceptors (as opposed to Buccaneer PFs) around. The result is no gain.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 08:36 pm: Edit

SPP,

Yes you are technically correct, nothing in the text says you can use them on a freighter, but I think you already knew that. So why tell me if I find something, that doesn't exsist, we can talk?

The section we both referenced doesn't contain any size comparison to a FB-111 either. The tables lists the B-25 and 26 as SC2 and the F-111 as SC2.5.

Since the current rules barr using a HTS "kit" bomber on a freighter you have made it clear there is no further discussion. So it there is any interest in some form of "kit" adaption of a shuttle into a limited fighter we can continue in J3.

By Paul Stovell (Pauls) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 05:36 am: Edit

Not what Michael wants but.....

I would argue that the "casual base" rule could be stretched to setting up facilities for upto four fighters in a small freighters ducktail,
or large freighter skid and ducktail.
From a PDU's point of view this might allow for example an extended search of "that strange reading in the asteroid belt". I think this would only be available as a special scenario rule or set up once a scenario begins.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 11:33 am: Edit

Petrick: You mentioned Armed Frieghters, which reminded me of a qustion (tho a bit off-topic here) ... has there even been a Q-ship based on the Armed Freighter to include the larger/faster warp drive?? If not, will there be?


Garth L. Getgen

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 03:32 pm: Edit

SPP, Of course there are "Top Gun" schools and "Red Flag" competitions. On earth it is routine for German Airforce fighter and fighterbombers to deploy to the US for these.

Or do you suppose that every planet with a dozen fighters maintains all the stuff such a school would require? Zillions of sensors covering all kinds of different terrains and altitudes, mock static targets, aggressor pilots with various alternate shuttles, simulated AA weapons/ ground bases/ sheilds/ ground force targets that move and react... Plus a top notch training staff for pilots, tech and support types. Probably here a IG component to travel to small defense batts would be based...

Plus combined space/ ground warfare locations? So GAS assaults can be practiced under extreme simulations and with maximum learning?

I would guess that for every couple of dozen systems that have defenses, there is a system that has bases on the surface, on the moon, a mocked up base and an asteroid belt practice location. These have no impact on any "real situation" but are soleyly mock ups for practice.

Basically, the Defense PDU there would be larger than usual and would include a bunch of "aggressor" units to simulate the enemy.

So we might have a mock Jindo asteroid ship with zero Gee aboard, a mock ground base that can be changed between simulated types with movable walls, and holo projections, a few dozen GCLs in varied terrains (artic, mountain, rift valley, swamp, heavy woods, plains, island,,,)

The more i think about it, the more likely it seems to me to be absolutely required.

YES, 99.99999999% of all trainign is done :in house" by the PDU. But you HAVE to have variety or after a while, Lt A KNOWS that LT B always ... location C because CAptain D will usually ... In a small pdu you have to get fresh blood, or you will stagnate.

Gotta have fresh ideas, opponents, terrains, targets and challenges. You remember making trips to Hood/ Bragg/ Sill/ Amador/ etc.

I can remember all kinds of trips and all I ever saw was beaches and the water! But beaches have more variability than you'd think (for example Deans dimensionless parameter, sand grain sizes, slope, wave action/ size/ period/ direction and behavior, tidal range, sediment composition blah blah. Plus what is offshore like sand bars, reefs, sunken stuff, mines, nets and chains...

Plus if there are sensors like GSR or mines (BOOM is absolutely a valid means for a sensor to announce a contact!) how can they be bypassed.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Michael,

Richard Wells posted "The Merchant Aircraft Carriers were closer to what is being proposed. The 20 MACs were cargo vessels with a flight deck placed on top to operate 3 or 4 aircraft." Also the link you posted had information on the MAC converted bulk cargo ships.

A LASH SKID could be coverted to a SKID with 4 fighters. As an alternative, since a standard fighter seems to cause concern and the bomber "kit" isn't allowed, perhaps a fighter kit for an admin shuttle could be developed (1x chaff 2x drones).

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 04:39 pm: Edit

Oh, yeah, I can think of lots of cool variations and yours seems better than most.

My whole point is that there should be some safer way to send cargo without 1) paying for a FAST freighter or 2) sending it n several Q ship trips, or 3) scaring up an escort from the police or fleet.

If I only had 25 cargo boxes to move, I would consider sending it on a large freighter with some kind of battle pod as 1 of hte 2 pods.

NOTE, I read the part about skids in R8 (?) last night and it SPECIFICALLY talks about there being "self defense" versions IIRC.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Joseph R. Carlson:

My apologies, the "we can talk" comment meant simply that there is always a chance I have missed something. You have of course, found something, but that something simply needs to be posted in the Captain's Log #31 After Action topic in that "The Article's Master Fighter Chart Says That These Bombers Can be Used From Any Unit And Is This Intentional?" It is not, it got missed, and does need to be fixed. These are bombers, the addition of the systems is supposed to make them too big to be used from normal shuttle bays, i.e., they are not useable from ships, Battle Stations, Mobile Bases, or etc.

Michael C. Grafton:

Much like our own Modern Military is increasingly heading towards simulators for pilot training, you can assume that the there is no actual movement of pilots and flights of fighters from PDUs to central training facilities constantly going on. Basically the training you are calling for as "red flag" is done by computer programs. The pilot can take his fighter off, black out the canopy, and from that point the computer simply generates a display both on his instruments and his canopy (where needed) of everything he needs to see to perform his mission, with a virtually zero percent chance that while he is making that practice straffing run through the asteroid field he does not actually collide with an asteroid. Cheap, effective, and the stress on the pilot is felt because it is real (he is really flying the fighter through the simulation).

The MOST you are going to have are "visiting firemen", i.e., a rotating staff of officers and technicians who visit the isolated PDUs to oversee the installation and running of new mission profiles and new data on fighters, ships, and etc. that the opposing force might be using (including the completely unexpected).

The same training regiemens and programs are used by carriers in operational missions (and for planning real time strikes on pre-planned targets), and on battle stations and etc.

So your "Red Flag" is quite simply an office on Klinshai or Earth, or Romulus, or Ghdar I, or what have you that oversees the development of the mission profile software and makes sure the the fighters and the squadrons have the most up to date systems and equipment to run the software.

From that point, all that travels from planet to planet is the group of officers who judge how well a given squadron performs, and safeguards the "mission test" (would not do for KK to get an advance copy and run its pilots through the test before the evaluation team arrives and thereby score higher than the squadrons that did not get an advance copy).

But basically everything that the squadron will test can be programmed and run on the fighter's computers monitored from the base or from a ship.

So there is no constant shipping of flights of fighters to Red Flag because Red Flag comes to the squadrons and tests the squadrons as a whole.

As part of this, a given Red Flag Cell might have several recent graduates of the flight academy with them, and they might leave a few at a planet here and there while picking up the best of the local pilots to transfer to front line squadrons. And perhaps they also use them to "relieve" a few pilots that are less than satisfactory, either permanently or to be sent back for retraining.

But it is IMMENSELY CHEAPER to move a few people around than to be constantly moving flights of fighters and associated deck crews.

And the programming would allow all possible mission variables. Even if the planet of Tregix IV only had a flight of six Z-2s, the Red Flag computer systems would allow the fighters to act as if they were fighting in conjuntion with Z-B bombers, G1 PFs, or as a full squadron of 12 Z-2s, or what ever. It would all be in the computer, and to the pilot, it would all seem real.

He would, once again, have to make all the actual maneuvers in his actual fighter with the computer telling him (imprinting on his cockpit instruments and canopy) if he got a lock-on to launch that drone, dodged that phaser burst from the enemy fighter, or was hit by the ADD system on that Kzinti DW, or ran right into asteroid, or, or, or, or . . .

So, no. There might be a Red Flag range that is used to develop the missions, but there is no movement of fighters and pilots to Red Flag. Only the movement of Red Flag evaluation teams from Red Flag to the various bases, PDUs, and carriers.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Garth Getgen:

Aside from the fact that it would obviously be a superior warship (note, WARSHIP), an Armed Freighter Variant of the Q-ship would ultimately defeat the concept of the Q-ship. So while it might be an interesting ship to take into a duel with another of its ilk, it would not work very well in the primary job of the Q-ship, which is too look like a HELPLESS freighter, not one that can fight.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Petrick -- true, but late-war era, it begins to make some sense fo a Super-Q Ship .... no??

If nothing else, it falls into the Scary Ships topic.


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 06:12 pm: Edit

You guys do realize that the fatal fallacy of all of your work in this topic is that FREIGHTER ENGINES (as opposed to MILITARY FREIGHTER ENGINES) don't change speed very well.

The Second Fatal Falacy is that you can't afford to load cargo ships with military goodies. You can't pay for them and you can't pay to carry them around for nothing.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 06:16 pm: Edit

SPP,

Thank you for your comments and clarification.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Michael Grafton:

Generally, the way things work is that your planet produces something, and at some point a freighter is scheduled to arrive to pick that something up. At the time the freighter makes the pick up it will probably drop something off. Your entire cargo might be picked up by the freighter that one time, or it might take a part of your cargo and another part will be picked up by another freighter. Further, the items you produce might all go in on direction, but more likely go in several directions. Somewhere someone is controlling the movements of the various freighters and is trying to keep the number of freighters that are traveling in ballast as small as possible.

Maybe your cargo will be picked up and travel to 16 different other colony planets before reaching its destination. Maybe it will be transhipped one or more times in the course of that travel.

But it is not always a case that your colony will get a freighter carrying 250-500 spaces of cargo, drop all of it off, and upload 250-500 spaces and move directly to another planet. Nor is it a case that your colony will only produce goods that will go directly to another colony. Yours is just one of a web of small colonies inside of a hex of a Federation and Empire Map whose combined product produces about 0.4 Economic Points every six months. In a six month period you will be visited by various freighters. If you have critical cargo that the Empire (or Federation or Hegemony or Confederation or Kingdom, etc.) needs, the government will make sure that an appropriate cargo mover arrives at a scheduled time to make that pick up (whether it is simply an Armed Freighter, or a convoy, or Tug, or . . .) and is moved as needed.

So your particular scenario involves some desperately needed cargo that has to be delivered NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW outside of the normal movement of shippers within the Empire (or other governmental entity).

And not only does this cargo need to be moved Immediately If Not Sooner, but there happens to be a freighter making an unscheduled run with a reliable reputation that has pulled in. The freighter that was carrying the original cargo got hit by Orions, and the replacement cargo just has to get there. And, not only that, but we happen to have two of these special fighter skids, and we are going to send a flight of fighters from the planetary defenses (just because the cargo was important enough to steal from the previous freighter does not mean that it is so important that if we start stripping parts of our planetary defenses that the Orions will not just raid the planet itself) complete with detachments from the ground forces to go along.

Sorry, but it does not wash.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 07:59 pm: Edit

Now, as to another thing. Casual fighter bases and Planetary Defense fighters.

From the Orbital Defense Platform topic it should be rather obvious that I have no problems with the fighters, marines/ground forces/whatever you want to call them of a given Planetary Defense Unit performing various and sundry operations within their purview. A freighter being attacked by Orions nearby, sure you might send some fighters to help, and maybe a shuttle to help with the rescue. A mining station that stops broadcasting, sure you might send a couple fighters and a shuttle with a repair crew and maybe some marines, maybe two shuttles to have a few extra marines and some medical personnel, to investigate.

But you are NOT going to send them haring off on grand adventures outside of your control. You are Not going to release your fighters to go on patrol with the Police Cutter.

Sure, you might send a shuttle and a flight of fighters to set up a temporary base on a asteroid in your planetary system to "snoop around" in response to some strange goings on. You might even regularly resupply the operation by sending a new shuttle (and the old one coming home) every once in a while, or move it around within the asteroid feild. But you are not going to strip your planet of its defenses and you are going to keep a string on the fighters so that you can recall them in a hurry. You are going to have that string even if they are on their way to investigate that freighter that was attacked because it might be a dummy message designed just to lure your fighters away from your planet.

Planetary Defense fighters only ever leave their PDU if their PDU is destroyed and they survive. They do not patrol other solar systems (alone or in company with some ship), or escort (more properly overwatch) convoys outside of their own system.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 08:47 pm: Edit

SPP,

As an alternative I suggested some form of limited fighter. A fighter "kit" is one idea (like the bomber kits in CL31; can be attached to a single space shuttle when needed, i.e. before a scenario).

I would agree a PDU is going to lend it fighters to a freighter (sold them to the Orions, reportered them as stolen). A "limited fighter" would give the option to protect more valuable cargo without borrowing from the Military.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 02:31 am: Edit

JRC: If the kit was useful, it would be placed on all warships that carried admin shuttles. A similar overuse of MRS in place of admins led to the heavy usage restrictions on MRS.

Obsolete fighters that might otherwise be used simply as targets seem a better option without forcing a change in the primary game.

I think a set of detailed optional rules listing how awkward fighter operations off skids and ducktails. I like the flexibility of the concept and the greater range of options it affords a player defending a convoy. I dislike the concept that a collection of skids and ducktails can produce more effective yet cheaper carriers than the dedicated AuxCVs.

I was thinking along these lines:

1) Only 1 deck crew can work in any skid or ducktail. (Tight space not intended for working on shuttles.) Alternatively, all deck crew actions require twice the effort.

2) Launching a fighter prevents any work from being conducted on the second fighter on that turn. (This is caused by a lack of proper protection from vacuum when the hatch is opened.)

3) Each skid and ducktail requires a longer interval between launches or landings. One of the suggested virtues of fighters carried in ducktails and skids is how much faster launching can be carried out than for normal carriers; that just seems wrong.

Maybe other optional rules could be considered. Rules can readily be ignored if the only unarmed cargo shuttles are available but rendering skids a lesser choice for fighter stowage.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 07:10 am: Edit

Richard Wells: I think that this is far, far too much effort put into a very minor possibility. We've come up with all sorts of ways to explain why casual-fighters-on-freighters wouldn't have the opportunity to happen, much less be considered a good idea.

Basically, the assumptions are that:
*The freighter is carrying something valuable and easily stolen.
*No escort ship is available, for whatever reason.
*There are not enough freighters to convoy.
*The shipment is on a very tight schedule and cannot wait for escort/convoy to be available.
*The freighter is going somewhere that's too far away to just send fighters along as escort.

That's a very specific set of assumptions. So much so that, in fact, I would suggest this as more of a special scenario rule rather than a general "anyone can do it whenever they want" rule. (And as a special scenario rule, you can just use the regular fighter rules, no need to invent a whole book of special rules for it.)

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 09:28 am: Edit

Let's add two other assumptions.

*There are no better-armed cargo ships available
(armed freighters, tugs, Q-ships)
*There are no express boats avialable (which might have enough space to maket the run if the cardo is small enough to be easily stolen, and are much better at running away).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 10:26 am: Edit

Richard Wells
1) Only one deck crew can work in any skid or ducktail. (Tight space not intended for working on shuttles.) Alternatively, all deck crew actions require twice the effort.

REPLY: By the definition of these units, they are designed to facilitate the movement of cargo. There would be no real reason to have a LASH skid if it was virtually impossible to readily move cargo onto the shuttles for transport down to the planet's surface. That inevitably means that there is going to be ample space for the crew to work around the shuttle getting the cargo loaded.

2) Launching a fighter prevents any work from being conducted on the second fighter on that turn. (This is caused by a lack of proper protection from vacuum when the hatch is opened.)

REPLY: I cannot see that the security and safety precautions on the shuttle dock on a LASH skid are going to be any different than those on any other internal shuttle dock. I would be forced, if I agreed to this, to have a general definition that all shuttle bays on "civilian" freighters operated this way, and I am not going to do that. Whether the shuttle is in the regular shuttle bay of the freighter, in the shuttle bay provided by a LASH skid, or in the shuttle bay provided by a Ducktail, the bay operates in the same manner and has the same safety interlocks and etc. as any other shuttle bay.

3) Each skid and ducktail requires a longer interval between launches or landings. One of the suggested virtues of fighters carried in ducktails and skids is how much faster launching can be carried out than for normal carriers; that just seems wrong.

REPLY: It may seem wrong, but the fact is that if you have separate bays, you can launch faster. That is why the Tholian external bays work so well for them, i.e., a separate bay for each fighter.

In regards a "kit" to convert an admin shuttle into a fighter. In essence, it already exists. You put a pilot and gunner on board and send the shuttle out. That 360 phaser-3 makes it as much of a fighter as it should ever be without other major modification converting it into something not a shuttle, i.e., into a real fighter.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 11:33 am: Edit

Michael Powers and David Slatter:

Basically, the assumptions are that:
*The freighter is carrying something valuable and easily stolen.

REPLY: This I have agreed to. There are a lot of freighters moving around, and for piracy to have any chance of being a going concern almost every freighter has to be at any given time carrying something that is small and valuable. Out of the (50 spaces per cargo box times 25 cargo boxes = ) 1,250 spaces of cargo on a given small freighter, a Light Raider has the ability to take only 75 spaces at one time, i.e., 6% of the total volume. But somehow this 6% is enough to support the Light Raider and the whole infrastructure of piracy. There are a lot of questions that are not answered.

How often does the LR approach a freighter to make a score before it actually does make a score?

How many scores must a Light Raider make in a given period of time to break even, so that we can know how many additional scores the Orion must make to be successful?

How often does a Light Raider pull over a freighter and find nothing of sufficient value to justify the attack?

How many scores can he make in a given area before fleet responds or larger police forces show up? It is imbedded in the game background that if a pirate operates in a given area too long, he eventually will attract unwanted attention [see for example the last paragraph of (R8.1) in Basic Set], so a given Orion can only operate in a given part of his Franchise for a fairly limited period of time "safely". And even that is nominal as there is always a chance that a fleet cruiser is "passing through" and has some time to divert to hunt for him, or a Q-ship just happens to be in a given area.

How does an Orion Light Raider get rid of his score so that he is ready to make another score? He cannot, after all, rob another freighter if his cargo boxes are full from that last freighter he robbed. We have never gone into the system by which Light Raiders (or other Orion Ships) get rid of their ill-gotten gains. If they were always traveling to the ubiquitous Hidden Orion Bases, it would mean that the Orions had so many bases that . . . well do I have to explain that? If the number of Orion Bases is reasonably small, then the Orion pirate ships would spend so much time in transit to and from those bases that they would not be doing very much piracy at all. The only operable solution I have ever been able to imagine is that any Light Raider has to set up an area to "hold" its gains temporarily, and then eventually an Orion Merchant ship controlled by the Local Cartel comes by and makes the pick ups and drops off supplies and perhaps some replacement crewmen (mostly "marines" to replace the ones lost in boarding actions). So the only times a Light Raider goes to an Orion base is when it needs repairs.

But the upshot to all that is a Light Raider will never attack an Armed Freighter by himself unless he is desperate.

*No escort ship is available, for whatever reason.

REPLY: And in the context of allowing Michael Grafton to develop his short story, I have acceded to this, but it is not a major concession. I have as noted agreed that he is in a situation where a particular cargo has to be moved NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW. In the normal course of events this particularly valuable cargo would be picked up by a scheduled transit, but due to some circumstance it needs to be moved out of the normal rotation. While the factories on planet XYZ normally get their allotments of this particular whatever from the scheduled freighters, the convoy that included the freighter that had the whatever was attacked by a large Orion force, or by a raiding enemy ship, or by a space monster, or ran into "The Perfect Ion Storm Of Century" and among other losses, the freighter carrying the whatever was destroyed (or the effect of the monster or the weird radiation did something to it making it useless or the government had to divert that convoy someplace else that needed something else that was vital in the convoy that was running short for any of the above reasons or some other reason). So now the whole local economy is at risk of disruption if a supply of Whatever is not gotten to colony XYZ. Colony KK has extra on hand quantities of Whatever, but does not own a freighter. But a freighter has arrived. Perhaps part of the normal rotation, perhaps an independent that travels around looking for cargoes. Perhaps it was sent there by the government because it was available from somewhere else. Whatever the "backstory", the cargo must reach XYZ, and the "Weary Donkey" is here and available, but the colony planet does not own any police ships, does not own any other ships at all, does not have any other ships available, and while obviously given enough time something could be sent, it is going to be a while before something else can be diverted and show up. And time is critical, if we do not get the Whatever to Colony XYZ . . . well as noted the whole local economy will be disrupted. So not only will the Weary Donkey carry the cargo, but it will make a direct transit to Colony XYZ, but it will be doing so alone.

*There are not enough freighters to convoy.

REPLY: I think I covered this above.

*The shipment is on a very tight schedule and cannot wait for escort/convoy to be available.

REPLY: I think I covered this above.

*The freighter is going somewhere that's too far away to just send fighters along as escort.

REPLY: Planetary Defense Unit fightes could never be used for this in any case. Fighters from a Base Sation, Battle Station, or Starbase could, but that is asking way too much. You could also fall back on a Backstory that says a given fighter squadron of "replacements" was "activated" for the mission. There just happens to be this squadron that is moving to the front, but is temporarily marooned here waiting for transport. So you load up most of the squadron's fighters still in their shipping crates on the Weary Donkey . . . because it just so happens that the front they are moving to is to become an added squadron to the defenses of colony XYZ.

At that point you are just running into the problem that fleet is not going to be keeping a bunch of "fighter Skids" laying around waiting to be used, and I do not think we are going to agree to allowing you to stick fighters in shuttle boxes on freighters. And fleet is not going to be assigning fighters and crewmen to stand around waiting for a need for a fighter skid to be used. That is where the thing starts breaking down. So what you are trying to do is say that the Police have a few of these fighter skids and occassionally assign one to some freighter or other. But that just seems unlikely as they would be more apt to assign them to a freighter that will be part of a convoy and remove them when the convoy is disbanded as opposed to assigning them to lone freighters.

That's a very specific set of assumptions. So much so that, in fact, I would suggest this as more of a special scenario rule rather than a general "anyone can do it whenever they want" rule. (And as a special scenario rule, you can just use the regular fighter rules, no need to invent a whole book of special rules for it.)

REPLY: As I had noted in trying to allow the story to go forward is that it would have to be a special rule for all the reasons I covered above. And I was willing to allow it to go forward on that basis in hopes that an interesting story would develop out of it. I acknowledge that Michael Grafton is a far batter writer than I could ever hope to be.

*There are no better-armed cargo ships available
(armed freighters, tugs, Q-ships)

REPLY: I think I covered that.

*There are no express boats avialable (which might have enough space to make the run if the cardo is small enough to be easily stolen, and are much better at running away).

REPLY: Always possible, but APTs are not that hard to damage. Their big advantage over freighters is that they can accelerate faster, but if the Orion can get in one good punch they are likely to be disabled, and as an Orion YOU KNOW it is not a Q-ship, which literally means you can approach it with minimum shields. Something you cannot do versus a Small Freighter (embarrassing as heck to approach that small freighter with minimum shields and have him tag you with an overloaded photon).

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 11:54 am: Edit

SPP:

I guess it's a little off-topic at this point, but I just wanted to add that, while I agree for game purposes with everything you wrote above regarding "Red Flag," I would point out that, even in the SFB fictional universe, there would likely still be an "actual" Red Flag exercise, with real pilots and fighters, and on a large scale (in times of peace, most likely).

It would occur once a year, and would be considered the "championship" competition for active units and NG units. I disagree with the implication of the original poster that the term "Red Flag" would apply to any/all advanced fighter training.

You know, an SFB version of a Red Flag fly-off might actually form part of an interesting fiction story...hmmm...2 F14 "hotshots" from a CVA vs. 2 older F4 NG drivers (seasoned veterans or aces) vs. 2 F18 from a mainline unit vs. etc., all in the same place for the competition, when the balloon goes up, and now these competitive (or combative?) personalities have to work together...

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:09 pm: Edit

Now, lets also mention "The Law of Unintended Consequences".

For now, the odds are that a given Franchise will be worked by one Light Raider.

If the freighters start becoming something that the Light Raiders cannot handle (and historically this did happen during the General War), then the Orions will change their operations.

This will happen in two ways.

The first, and much less efficient way, is that the Light Raiders will begin operating in pairs against the freighters. The main reason this is inefficient is that, quite simply if the opposition is that tough it is very likely that one of the two Light Raiders is going to be damaged and be in need of repair.

The other option will be that the Orions start deploying bigger ships. This happened with the appearance of the Double Light Raider in Y168, and the later appearance of the War Destroyer in Y174.

The problem is that larger Orion ships require more supply, and thus have those larger cargo bays for a reason. The DW was not that monstrous an upgrade (wanted 8% of the cargo of a Small Freighter rather than 6%), it only wanted 33% more in booty than the older LRs were taking, but two LRs operating together (or melded into a single DBR hull) wanted 100% more cargo for their operations, i.e., 12% of the cargo of a given small freighter. But this is the same amount you would get taken for by a CR, MR, AR, etc.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:26 pm: Edit

Richard Sherman:

While I could see a competition at a training range on Mars, or Klinshai, or Kzintai, or Ghdar II, or Remus, or . . . to determine the best pilots of given branches. And I could see such a competition starting with the Red Flag guys going around and nominating the best in each branch based on their observations, all of whom would then be called to the range for the final ultimate grudge match to determine which branch got the bragging rights to having the best pilots. I could not see them being transported by a freighter with their fighters active. More likely if they wanted to keep their own personal fighters for the competition the Fleet would send a an Armed Priority Transport to pick up each "team" and bring them directly to the range. And I would expect that since it would take at least six months to a year to run the whole thing (picking them up, transporting them to the competition, running the competition, and then taking them back to their various planets/bases/ships) that as part of it someone would have to be filling in for them in their squadrons while they were away.

The upshot would be that in game terms it is meaningless. No planet would be operating only ten fighters because two of the fighters are away from six months for a competition.