SPP:

I think we are miscommunicating.

Point 1. No mech link skiffs or Mech Link Modular Couriers for Federation use. Understood.

Point 2. No "Survey Fighter".

So, that leaves me asking for a clarification... could a Federation ship (say a size class 2 or 3 hull like a DN/CVA/SCS or a CA/CC/BCH/CVS/CVB )carry a skiff or a modular cutter internally?

note#1, not as an interceptor but perhaps as one of the ships alotted small craft like an Admin Shuttle or 2 space shuttle or in place of an SWAC?

Note#2, the Skiff or MCR is the printed version, not a specialized EW unit like JRC's E-7.

If the answer is no, then the E-7 (and other variants of the Skiff and MCR designs) is DOA.

If the answer is maybe, a short word of explaination as to what would be allowed would be welcome.

and if the answer is yes, are there any explicit limits in place...(limits like no ship could ever carry more than 1 skiff or MCR at the same time, or perhaps 1 of each and no more, or even, yes, allowed, but no more than the capacity of the hanger bay.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 04:17 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Frankly, trying to design anything in the...

---

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 04:19 pm: Edit

>could a Federation ship...carry a skiff or a
> modular cutter internally?

Those are Size Class 5 ships, which are bigger than bombers, and bombers are too big to be carried internally.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

They are Size Class 5 (Annex #3), and the ship description of the Modular Cutter specifically notes that it is larger than a heavy transport shuttle, which moves it into (at the very least) the three-space shuttle category which cannot be carried in internal shuttle bays [(R1.F13) last sentence] on ships.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 07:07 pm: Edit

SPP,

(K2.6) PFs can be docked internally (K2.62). Also see (R5.24) The Kzinti could carry a 13TH PF in the internal bay. The SSCS is a huge SC2 ships.

So what about an SC3 ship with (K2.62) internal mech-links? See (R8.19) Orion BRP,it has 2 internal mech links and four external (K2.2). The Kzinti PFT (R5.22) is an SC4 and has 2 internal mech links.

A PF is larger than a 4 space bomber. I understand that there are no bomber shuttle bays. A PF internal mech-lnk is also not a shuttle (fighter or heavy fighter) rack. The Federation uses the heavy fighter mech-link as depicted in (K2.24) symbols. A MCR derived unit could, given the correct ship and mech-link bay design, be carried internally. I am not saying the Federation during the GW did or would do that.

The drogue is an outgrowth of mech-link technology (G34.0). Megafighter systems were developed at the about same time as interceptors (related technology). The technology of these above systems and examples are related. The outcome or final designs were different and some of the componet technology was used in different ways.

What is my point? I find your statement "The whole gist of my response was simply that you (generic use, not "you" specifically) cannot change the rules of the Federation and apply "interceptor technology" to a Federation unit." too broad a prohibition. The Federation did not build PFs or interceptors but did use some of the technology. Suggesting that the Federation uses technology related to or from interceptors and PFs I don't think is changing the history it just needs to be carefully explained.

Going with your above statements the E7 would not be allowed. It is related to (looks like) a modular cutter, uses interceptor technology and appears late in the X1 period or early X2 period.

The other option is some new shuttle that is more capable than an X-MRS, but is less expensive than a NX-SWAC (E2 or E3). My impression is a SWAC is more a powerful EW unit than a PFQ. An example: add the scout functions capablity for 25, 27, and 29 to an X-MRS (2-space shuttle).

I am not trying to be argumentative and hope that I am not coming across that way.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 07:47 pm: Edit

SPP,

My statement on second look is harshly worded, please accept my appologies.

"What is my point? I find your statement "The whole gist of my response was simply that you (generic use, not "you" specifically) cannot change the rules of the Federation and apply "interceptor technology" to a Federation unit." too broad a prohibition."

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Since a enhanced SWAC built ona MRC platform is up in the air. Also the cost in BPV would be almost as much as an FFX I have an alternate idea.

I have in passing mentions some form of shuttle that is between an X-MRS and a NX-SWAC. The basic ideas is: add 1 scout channel to either an X-MRS or build an X-MRS on a 2 space HTS frame and add 1 channel. Below is a comparison table.

	A-MRS	X-MRS	E2-A SWAC	E3-A SWAC	X-GSS	X-GSS
BPV(combat)	11	12	15	23	15	14
BPV(econ)	6	6	64	94	36	36
weapons	P3, ADD-6, 2 Sp DR	P3, ADD-6, 2 Sp DR	PG, ADD-6, 1 Chaff	PG, ADD-12, 2 Chaff	PG, ADD-12, 2 Chaff, 2 Sp DR	PG, ADD-6, 2 Chaff, 2 Sp DR
SW Control	6	6	6+6	6+6	6+6	6+6
lend EW range	5	5	10	10	5	5
No Labs	2	2	2	2	2	2
Other uses	WW, SS, SP	WW, SS, SP	W SWAC	W SWAC	WW, SS, SP	WW, SS, SP
Scout Channels	0	0	2	3	1	1
FTR Pods	Cargo, Sensor, Chaff	Cargo, Sensor, Chaff			Cargo, Sensor, Chaff	Cargo, Sensor, Chaff
Cargo Cap	20	20	5	5	30	20
Size	1 space	1 space	1 space	2 space	2 space	1 space
Damage	10	10	12	18	18	12
Speed	10	10	10	10	10	10
					Option 1	Option 2

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 02:41 pm: Edit

The biggest difference between a survey PF and a shuttle based equivalent is shields.

There is a lot of survey terrain that requires shields that PFs can go into and shuttles cannot. And that terrain (dust clouds, radiation zones) is just the place to send a PF for a quick first look rather than risk a whole crew of a specialized survey ship.

I would rather see something like a limited issue special technology megafighter pack with a 10-12 point 360 degree shield and no added weapons. That way the Feds can meet that minimal requirement with a double sized science shuttle.

There would be a great deal of balancing with things like monster point defense, but it is a mission need the Federation uniquely has that justifies a unique technology. AKA if it cost nearly as much as a PF and PFs are better, no other empire will bother with it.

Another unique fighter technology I see for the Feds is some sort of F111 and bomber fire control package to deal with the PF specific game monsters.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Trent,

Could add a special megapack, like you suggested, to the 2 space GSS. Since is a late X1R or early X2 period unit that type of system can't be retro fitted to any other shuttle or SWAC. Also probably due to height it couldn't fit in a normal 2 space rack.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Trent,

If you could add a special megafighter pack with a 10 - 12 point 360 shield and no added weapons (but includes the speed and damage capacity?!?) why wouldnt you want it for normal fighters?

Just take an old obsolete Federation F4 (BPV7, speed 8, Damage 9) with your "special mega fighter pack" adding a 10 or 12 point 360 degree shield would effectively increase the damage ability of the F-4 to (9+10=19) or (9+12=21)...

Per rule J16.23 the mega fighter packs add 2 more damage capacity per fighter so the end numbers would be (9+10+2=21) or (9+12+2=23)

(Note, this asumes that one could apply a mega fighter pack refit to a F-4 in the first place... but this is not a proposal, just using the F-4 as an example to illustrate what Trents "shield mega fighter pack" would look like.)

this might be "too good a deal"...

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 04:06 pm: Edit

Converting a fighter for a survey mission is just wrong. You need a box van for this mission, not a Corvette. Convert a heavy shuttle into a survey shuttle if you must.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Tos: And we're back to the Survey SWAC.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Same idea but less expensive. I can't see a survey shuttle having any significant effect on combat. I'm thinking less Survey SWAC, more Heavy MRS.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Disassemble a MRC (it's PF size remember), slip it into the 10! Cargo on a GSC, go to area, assemble it, and let it go until you leave the area.

You guys are making this too hard, this doesn't have to be deployed (launched) during combat.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 06:54 pm: Edit

In (J16.1) any race that has interceptor technology can deploy megafighters. The Federation deployed megafighter technology independently of developing interceptors. These mega-systems weren't available for shuttles due to the size; wouldn't fit in the shuttle racks.

The Federation by using their mega-system techology isn't using interceptor technology and avoids the Modular Cutter issues. A mega-system could be installed on a shuttle but the rack/bay would need to be different. The Federation could carry a shuttle with mega-pack in a internal mech-link bay as these are large enough for an interceptor or PF. Further a mega-pack (unless it is outlawed) could be put on an X-MRS or my proposed X-GSS, which I see as different that putting a X-mega-pack on an NX fighter. This isn't applying X-tech to a fighter.

Trent's idea that the mega-system have 10-12 point 360 degree shield would complete the package. The issue that arises is this a backdoor way into a PF? While I don't think so due to crew size and combat capabilities of a heavy fighter compared to PF my desire for such a thing probably colors my opinion.

A Post GW mega-pack for an F-111 with 10-12 point shield is where this leads. The mega-shield-pack would be larger than the mega-pack so other fighters couldn't be equiped with them and fit in the reload racks (includes A-20). If is after OpU maybe it won't be earn "this way lies madness" seal.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 09:46 pm: Edit

If it's after the General War, I'd think it would be almost as cheap and much more useful to just build another survey cruiser.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 12:15 am: Edit

I proposed a "Heavy Science Shuttle" in my last submission package to the Steves (I think it was addressed to the "Totally Unsolicited Proposal Department").

Basically a 2 space MRS/ SWAC wannabe. I gave it twice the size and about HALF the ability of the SWAC. My proposal noted that the GORNS and KZINTI shared the fed tech, but cold not afford the entire miniturization and power a full up swac entails.

Mike

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 06:40 pm: Edit

I have been working on a concept for fighters and shuttles. Below are draft rules.

NX Fighters and X Fighters

(J xx.xxx) First generation X technology could not be used with GW fighters. Most races did not have the resources available due to first the ISC conflict and then the Andromedan attack galaxy wide. Two years after the RTN was discovered the Federation made a break through in fighter design. They developed a fighter Advance Structural Integrity Field systems pack (FASIF). It was derived from a mega-systems pack and advances in power system miniaturization. Within a year the technology was shared with or stolen by all the races. FASIF was a conformal pod applied to a fighter like a mega-systems pack. The power generated by the FASIF pack was used to apply an EM force field to the fighter’s structure. This field mitigates damage and allows close maneuvering without reducing the Dog Fight rating (DFR). A FASIF pack is not a shield under (D3.0)
(J xx.xx1) AVAILABILITY:
(J xx.xx11) Any race that has developed mega-system fighters can deploy FASIF packs for fighters. A FASIF pack cannot be added to any GW era shuttle or XMRS. Bombers cannot use FASIF packs.

(J xx.x12) COST: Adding an FASIF pack to a fighter costs two BPV, and to a heavy fighter costs three BPV.

(J xx.x13) SIZE: An ASIF equipped fighter is the same size as the standard version of the fighter.

(J xx.x2) OPERATIONS:

(J xx.x21) SPEED: A FASIF pack doesn’t add to the fighters speed. A fighter equipped with a FASIF pack is subject to death dragging and it’s speed under (G7.55) remains the same. The FASIF was designed to be used in conjunction with an advanced Warp Booster Pack (AWBP) (JXX. XX))
(J xx.x211) A fighter with a FASIF pack and AWBP does not incur the penalties of (J5.31) as long as the fighter is not crippled. See (J xx.x23).
(J xx.x211) A fighter with a FASIF pack and AWBP does not have to drop it’s AWBP under (J7.13) but may dogfight shuttles with and without boosters packs and with mega-system packs.

(J xx.x22) CLOSE MANUVERS: The dogfight rating of a fighter equipped with a FASIF pack is not reduced. FASIF fighters operated under remote control follow (J15.23).

(J xx.x23) DAMAGE: A FASIF pack adds three points to the damage points needed to destroy a given fighter. The crippled rating is two thirds, rounded up, of the increased total damage points. FASIF pack adds four points to a heavy fighter.

(J xx.x231) Once a fighter or heavy fighter is crippled it must drop its AWBP or damage will be scored per (J5.31).

(J xx.x24) A FASIF does not increase the fighter’s weapons.

Advance Warp Booster Packs.

(J xx.0) The advances in power system miniaturization lead to the creation of variable speed warp booster packs (AWBP). The rules in (J5.0) are followed except as noted here.

(J xx.11) Are available starting Y195.

(J xx.12) AWBP can be used by any shuttle under the same restrictions in (J5.12)

(J xx.134) AWBP may be set at any speed up to double the shuttles normal speed.

(J xx.14) If using speed changes in mid-turn (C12.34), the AWBP may be turned off or the speed increased or decreased once during the turn in addition to any changes made during Energy Allocation Phase.

(J xx.31) Double damage under (J5.31) is only scored when the speed of the shuttle or fighter is greater than +4 over the normal speed. Damage at speeds of +4 and less is scored at the normal rate.

By Alan W. Kerr (Awkerr) on Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Trent -> Jeff -> me...
Re: shields and megapack

if you are worried that this will be "too good",
perhaps this can be used as a balance point...

The shields around the shuttle/fighter make it
easier to see... so it loses its "small target"
bonus.
or some of the built-in EW. perhaps it can only
generate ECCM (what *is* "that") and not ECM.

There should be a simple way of making this
useful to a "survey unit" but undesireable for
a fighter.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 02:15 pm: Edit

I'm confused. Is the FASIF a mega-pack or something else? I'm not talking about the background, but about the rules/gameplay POV. This needs to be clarified. What is the relation to X-techology? (It seems like there is none in which case X-tech should not be mentioned at all). At this point, I'm too confused to be able to comment coherently. What does NX mean? This acronym is not defined anywhere in SFB to my knowledge.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 03:18 pm: Edit

David,

A FASIF is derived from mega-system technology not from X technology. NX mean non-X tech. So it could be seem as a type of mega pack. Instead of boosting speed it uses the packs energy to enhance the fighter's structural integrity. A mega-pack increases speed but the DFR is reduced.

What other questions do you have? I am also interested in your comments as well as one else who would like to comment.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 12:58 pm: Edit

This is just a vauge concept right now, but I was concidering the WWII German 'mistel' conglomerate aircraft. While this is by no means a FORMAL proposal, the concept of such is interesting. Could/would a power use bomber/med. bombers in a suicide role durring the later portions of the war in a simmiler role to that of the Luftwaffe? How could this be represented in game terms? Would this be a special amendum to the suicide shuttle rules or something that reflects the structure of deathrider craft or something else. While there would not be large numbers of obsolete bombers, would there be enough left to justify such a concept. Please let me know what you think. Thanks!

By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 03:52 pm: Edit

The problem with bombers is that they need a base to operate from. As such, I'm not sure I see a tactical use for a suicide bomber, unless its a function that can be given to any bomber. And even then, the biggest problem with old bombers is their speed. As such, they're more useful as drone launch platforms than anything else since the drones can be speed 32. (Just launch from the planet, launch their drones, and then land).

By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 04:09 pm: Edit

Joseph, I'm sorry but I still seem to be confused when I read your rules. I think it is because of rule inheritance issues. These systems either need to explicitly inherit mega-pack and WBP rules or be totally separate and not mention those systems at all (at least not beyond the color text). I would also suggest not linking the two systems in any way.

Without being exactly sure what the FASIF is doing, I can't be sure, but its BPV cost looks very very low (remember the BPV of mega-packs is 50% of that of the fighter, or at least 4 BPV and 5 or 6 for decent fighters). And even at its current cost, I don't see a good reason to buy one of these over a standard mega-pack, the latter just has so many more advantages.

I'm not sure the AVWBP (I'd shorten the acronym to ABP--advanced booster pack) is worth adding to the game, the improvement over the standard WBP seems very limited (at least on anything other than an admin shuttle).

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 06:01 pm: Edit

David,

Thanks for the information. It was helpful.