After-Burner Emergency Warp Movement for fighters. by Jeff Wile, USS Minnesota.

This proposal assumes the following points to be correct.

1. that rule C6.0 High Energy Movement pertains to fighters in as far as the provision of rule C6.2 states that "Each High Energy Turn requires energy equal to five hexes of movement>"

2. That Fighters, not being required to "fill out" an energy allocation form have the energy needed to perform a HET "pre-reserved" that portion of energy in the event that a HET is needed during any point during a normal turn.

As such, the proposal is to allow the player the choice to "burn" the HET each turn as a "After Burner" giving the fighter 5 extra Points of movement at the cost of giving up its HET ability for the remainder of that turn.

Since the energy is already allocated as part of the fighter abilities, each turn following the use of after burners would have the power available for the next turns HET to reuse.

All fighter using races would be able to utilize after-burners.

I would recommend the following restrictions to be required for use with after burners.

1. No change to turn mode of the fighter.

2. Require that fighters that are fully loaded with drones, Plasma cannisters(such as type D plasma), fighter pods and (for those so equipped) charged weapons such as photons and disrupters, not be allowed to use after burners.

3. allow crippled fighters to use after burners (as an escape manuver as the fighter attempts to disengage via distance).

4. Consider allowing the use of afterburners as part of a "mid turn Speed Change". (See Rule C12.0 Changing speed in mid turn).

Such modifications would keep the existing tactics and fighter usage unchanged as after burners could not be used during the "approach" to the battle... but would make disengagement easier, and possibly allow fighters that have expended their weapons loads and crippled fighters a better chance to survive.

Comments?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 - 10:25 am: Edit

Jeff Wile:

In re assumption #1, nope. See (J4.122).

In re assumption #2, it could be argued that a fighter HET is simply a strain on the life support system. That a fighter is a small enough warp field that the stress of turning the craft does not require as much energy as say turning a Cutter, or even a PF, much less a dreadnought. In any case the cost of a HET for a fighter is zero in terms of energy.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 - 11:22 am: Edit

With booster packs and megapacks, fighters have everything they need.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 - 12:06 pm: Edit

I'm not even convinced (from my memory of what I've read) that fighter HETs are a product of energy expendature.

It seems to me (guessing) that with manouver thrusters at the ends of long wings, the ratio of radius of gyration (sorta like center of gravity of a spining object) to the lever-moment set up by those trusters at the ends of the wings; would be much greater than that same ratio for a ship...and as such the fighter could change direction much more rapidly than a ship.
I'm not saying ships change direction at warp with their chemical reaction manouver thrusters, just that I'm not convinced that a fighter HET is energy based.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 - 02:03 pm: Edit

I'd think the energy of the lost movement point goes into loss due to the snap direction change and to extra power being applied to inertial dampeners (ala life support as SPP puts it).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

There is no energy or movement cost for a fighter to do an HET, see (J4.122) as I referenced in my earlier reply to Jeff Wile. There is a movement cost of one point of movement for the fighter (or shuttle) to do erratic maneuvers (C10.13).

I also have no particular desire to try to integrate this concept in with the existing rules for Warp Packs, or Mega-Packs.

I also do not want to get into an argument about what constitutes "fully loaded" per Jeff Wile's proposed rule (Item #2), why the use of After burner would not affect turn mode if the fighter is pushed into a speed that would normally change its turn mode as an exception to (J1.23) per his Item #1.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 - 03:30 pm: Edit

Ooops, that's right. Sorry.

And I agree, WBP's and Megas are enough.

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 - 10:14 pm: Edit

Just as an aside, the Magellenic races (Module C5) do have an Overdrive (I think that's what it's called) function for a set number of impulses per turn. This allows the fighter to move one hex of overdrive movement each impulse in addition to any scheduled movement. So, on some impulses it moves twice. But then, funky interactions take place on those impulses if the fighter is destroyed. These fighters, though, cannot use megapacks or booster packs.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 - 01:25 pm: Edit

It was not my intent to suggest that the "overdrive" would be used in conjunction with WBP's or Megas... note that I specifically mentioned retreat and crippled fighters... the intent was for "normal" fighters (those that have dropped WBP's and those fighters not equipped with Mega fighter packs) the opportunity to trade their HET ability (atleast the chance to use its HET) for a higher retreat speed.

I would support changing the proposal to reflect that use of the "After Burner" immediately requires the dropping of WBP's. We might also consider changing the proposal to make "after Burners" incompatible with Mega Packs.

Re: Rule J4.122.

I understand that the rule states that there is no energy or movement cost for HET's...

I would point that Rule C6.2 does indicate that that for normal starships, energy is required.

My "take" on the rule was that J4.122 is a game balance convention to make fighters and shuttles function in the game rules set, that the energy is "assumed" to be preallocated for an HET.

I think that is more reasonable than assuming that HET's are "free" for fighters (and arguably for interceptors (rule K3.23)).

It should be noted that PF's (not significantly different in size from Interceptors) do infact have to pay for the 5 points of movement "cost" for their "free" HET.

SPP is pointing out the "letter" of the rule.

I just wonder if there is, in fact a portion of energy that a fighter uses to perform HET's that for game playing purposes, was "assumed" away (in the form of rule J4.22) to make it easier to play fighters without having to complete an individual energy allocaation sheet for each individual fighter.

This rule is effectively in the same kind of catagory as emergency life support energy costs for crippled star ships. (see rule B3.1, 7. life Support and Rule S2.4).

SPP:

I also did not want to get into a complicated discussion as to what "constituted" "fully loaded" (re item#2). it was an attempt to keep the proposed rule simple and not require players to have to treat fighters using afterburners differently than fighters not using after burners with reguard to turn modes.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 - 03:09 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile Said: "It was not my intent to suggest that the "overdrive" would be used in conjunction with WBP's or Megas... note that I specifically mentioned retreat and crippled fighters..."

REPLY: If it was not your intent, then you should have specifically said so, since "crippled" fighters can still have warp booster packs (if installed and not dropped) and would still be a Mega-fighters (if they had mega-fighter systems installed). You did not state that your rule was "only for crippled fighters, and only those that are not mega-fighters and have dropped warp packs if they had them". In not so saying, you pretty much implied that your proposal WOULD be used with those systems also. Note that Z-1s with warp packs or mega packs would normally only be speed 12, so you were leaving (even if unintentional) a door open with your proposal for such a combination. Even if your mind you were thinking about Z-Ys, which are speed 30 with warp packs or mega packs. You did not at any point in the proposal limit it to crippled fighters, or fighters not equipped with warp packs or mega packs.

Jeff Wile Said: ". . . the intent was for "normal" fighters (those that have dropped WBP's and those fighters not equipped with Mega fighter packs) the opportunity to trade their HET ability (atleast the chance to use its HET) for a higher retreat speed."

REPLY: As noted, you did not in the proposal state this as a sole limitation. If this ability existed to "burn a HET for speed", it would be used by Z-1 fighters (and by a lot of other direct-fire fighters, like Hydran Stingers) to close the range in attack runs. It would make zero game logic sense for it to be an ability that only exists for "crippled fighters".

Jeff Wile Said: "I would support changing the proposal to reflect that use of the "After Burner" immediately requires the dropping of WBP's. We might also consider changing the proposal to make "after Burners" incompatible with Mega Packs."

REPLY: But what you are doing is changing the very nature of fighter operations. The Hydrans would use this for years prior to Y180 to swarm Klingon and Lyran ships. Why would they not?

Jeff Wile Said: "Re: Rule J4.122.
"I understand that the rule states that there is no energy or movement cost for HET's...
"I would point that Rule C6.2 does indicate that that for normal starships, energy is required.
"My "take" on the rule was that J4.122 is a game balance convention to make fighters and shuttles function in the game rules set, that the energy is "assumed" to be preallocated for an HET."

REPLY: If that were so, then fighters would also pay no energy for erratic maneuvers, something that costs them one point of movement, rather than the six points of movement for a ship, or the three points of movement for a nimble ship or PF. Fighters are not ships. It does not cost them as much to do erratic maneuvers, and costs them nothing to do a HET, at least not enough to do a HET that it has any effect on their available energy. Certainly not enough to justify adding five hexes of movement to a stodgy boat like a Z-1, nor are you explaining how a crippled Z-1 (Speed of three) can suddenly jump to speed eight under your rule. Sorry, but the rule as proposed simply does not work, partly because there are fighters of such slow speeds, and partly because there is no excuse not to use this system to overrun enemy ships if you are launching masses of direct-fire fighters, like the Hydrans.

Jeff Wile Said: "I think that is more reasonable than assuming that HET's are "free" for fighters (and arguably for interceptors (rule K3.23))."

REPLY: You are mis-reading (K3.23), it does not say anywhere in it that Interceptors get "Free HETs", it says that they can make one HET without chance of a breakdown, just like a PF can. But it is not a "Free HET", they pay for it as you can see by looking at the SSD for Interceptors which shows the energy cost of a HET. Sorry, but a fighter HET is free. A speed six fighter has a free HET every turn, and could make several such HETs in a turn if it was breaking tractor links (G7.55), even though it only has enough power to move speed six.

Jeff Wile Said: "It should be noted that PF's (not significantly different in size from Interceptors) do infact have to pay for the 5 points of movement "cost" for their "free" HET."

REPLY: The "Free HET" is a HET with no chance of a BREAKDOWN, not a HET with no energy cost. Check the SSD for Interceptors, they pay the equivalent of five hexes of movement to do an HET just like a PF does.

Jeff Wile Said: "SPP is pointing out the "letter" of the rule."

REPLY: Jeff, I do not see any way to respond to this without it being taken as an attempt to be mean, or insulting, or in any of a number of unintended negative ways. This is a limit imposed by this being a print medium, so tone and expression are lost. As such, I am NOT going to formally reply to the above because I do not want to convey anything more than an effort to be explanatory, and my skills in phrasing such a response to this line are way too limited.

Jeff Wile Said: "I just wonder if there is, in fact a portion of energy that a fighter uses to perform HET's that for game playing purposes, was "assumed" away (in the form of rule J4.22) to make it easier to play fighters without having to complete an individual energy allocaation sheet for each individual fighter."

REPLY: Of course it is a game fudge factor. But that does not mean that it is something that you can then try to change into something else. The fact is that a Z-1 (Speed 6) can do as many as 32 HETs in a single turn under (G7.55) (requiring it to be tractored by 32 different tractor beams, admittedly). Are you going to say that the fighter is thus able to move speed 166 by using all this energy? Or that a Z-Y can move speed 175 normally?

Jeff Wile Said: "This rule is effectively in the same kind of catagory as emergency life support energy costs for crippled star ships. (see rule B3.1, 7. life Support and Rule S2.4).

REPLY: No, it is not.

Jeff While Said: "SPP:
"I also did not want to get into a complicated discussion as to what "constituted" "fully loaded" (re item#2). it was an attempt to keep the proposed rule simple and not require players to have to treat fighters using afterburners differently than fighters not using after burners with reguard to turn modes."

REPLY: Then why did you even add that as part of your proposal? So that you could "graciously delete it" in hopes that by giving up something you would get your idea accepted? YOU wrote it into your proposal, so obviously YOU did not think it was too complicated a discussion to get into. So I guess you only included it in hopes that, as I have noted, you could agree to dropping this "complicated part" of your proposal to make the rest of it acceptable?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 - 05:06 pm: Edit

(sigh)

So much for trying to keep it as a simple, uncomplicated discussion.

SPP posted:"Jeff Wile Said: "It was not my intent to suggest that the "overdrive" would be used in conjunction with WBP's or Megas... note that I specifically mentioned retreat and crippled fighters..."

REPLY: If it was not your intent, then you should have specifically said so, since "crippled" fighters can still have warp booster packs (if installed and not dropped) and would still be a Mega-fighters (if they had mega-fighter systems installed). You did not state that your rule was "only for crippled fighters, and only those that are not mega-fighters and have dropped warp packs if they had them". In not so saying, you pretty much implied that your proposal WOULD be used with those systems also. Note that Z-1s with warp packs or mega packs would normally only be speed 12, so you were leaving (even if unintentional) a door open with your proposal for such a combination. Even if your mind you were thinking about Z-Ys, which are speed 30 with warp packs or mega packs. You did not at any point in the proposal limit it to crippled fighters, or fighters not equipped with warp packs or mega packs."

Reply:

Ok. I should have stated that the "after Burning" ability is not compatible with Warp Booster Pods or Mega Packs.

Spp Posted:
"Jeff Wile Said: ". . . the intent was for "normal" fighters (those that have dropped WBP's and those fighters not equipped with Mega fighter packs) the opportunity to trade their HET ability (atleast the chance to use its HET) for a higher retreat speed."

REPLY: As noted, you did not in the proposal state this as a sole limitation. If this ability existed to "burn a HET for speed", it would be used by Z-1 fighters (and by a lot of other direct-fire fighters, like Hydran Stingers) to close the range in attack runs. It would make zero game logic sense for it to be an ability that only exists for "crippled fighters"."

Reply:

OK, I again stipulate that I should have clearly stated that "after Burning" manuvers are not used in the approach to combat.

SPP Posted:
"Jeff Wile Said: "I would support changing the proposal to reflect that use of the "After Burner" immediately requires the dropping of WBP's. We might also consider changing the proposal to make "after Burners" incompatible with Mega Packs."

REPLY: But what you are doing is changing the very nature of fighter operations. The Hydrans would use this for years prior to Y180 to swarm Klingon and Lyran ships. Why would they not?"

Reply: Which is why it was meant for after combat... as a means to allow fighters to safely (well, relatively, anyway) depart from a combat area.

SPP posted:

"Jeff Wile Said: "Re: Rule J4.122.
"I understand that the rule states that there is no energy or movement cost for HET's...
"I would point that Rule C6.2 does indicate that that for normal starships, energy is required.
"My "take" on the rule was that J4.122 is a game balance convention to make fighters and shuttles function in the game rules set, that the energy is "assumed" to be preallocated for an HET."

REPLY: If that were so, then fighters would also pay no energy for erratic maneuvers, something that costs them one point of movement, rather than the six points of movement for a ship, or the three points of movement for a nimble ship or PF. Fighters are not ships. It does not cost them as much to do erratic maneuvers, and costs them nothing to do a HET, at least not enough to do a HET that it has any effect on their available energy. Certainly not enough to justify adding five hexes of movement to a stodgy boat like a Z-1, nor are you explaining how a crippled Z-1 (Speed of three) can suddenly jump to speed eight under your rule. Sorry, but the rule as proposed simply does not work, partly because there are fighters of such slow speeds, and partly because there is no excuse not to use this system to overrun enemy ships if you are launching masses of direct-fire fighters, like the Hydrans."

Reply:

I have no choice but to accept your pronouncement that the rule does not work.

SPP posted:
"Jeff Wile Said: "I think that is more reasonable than assuming that HET's are "free" for fighters (and arguably for interceptors (rule K3.23))."

REPLY: You are mis-reading (K3.23), it does not say anywhere in it that Interceptors get "Free HETs", it says that they can make one HET without chance of a breakdown, just like a PF can. But it is not a "Free HET", they pay for it as you can see by looking at the SSD for Interceptors which shows the energy cost of a HET. Sorry, but a fighter HET is free. A speed six fighter has a free HET every turn, and could make several such HETs in a turn if it was breaking tractor links (G7.55), even though it only has enough power to move speed six."

Reply:

Ok, I miss read rule K3.23.

SPP Posted:

"Jeff Wile Said: "It should be noted that PF's (not significantly different in size from Interceptors) do infact have to pay for the 5 points of movement "cost" for their "free" HET."

REPLY: The "Free HET" is a HET with no chance of a BREAKDOWN, not a HET with no energy cost. Check the SSD for Interceptors, they pay the equivalent of five hexes of movement to do an HET just like a PF does."

Ok, I miss read rule K3.23.

SPP Posted:

"Jeff Wile Said: "SPP is pointing out the "letter" of the rule."

REPLY: Jeff, I do not see any way to respond to this without it being taken as an attempt to be mean, or insulting, or in any of a number of unintended negative ways. This is a limit imposed by this being a print medium, so tone and expression are lost. As such, I am NOT going to formally reply to the above because I do not want to convey anything more than an effort to be explanatory, and my skills in phrasing such a response to this line are way too limited."

Reply: Thank you for not responding in a manner that could be construed as mean or insulting.

SPP Posted:

"Jeff Wile Said: "I just wonder if there is, in fact a portion of energy that a fighter uses to perform HET's that for game playing purposes, was "assumed" away (in the form of rule J4.22) to make it easier to play fighters without having to complete an individual energy allocaation sheet for each individual fighter."

REPLY: Of course it is a game fudge factor. But that does not mean that it is something that you can then try to change into something else. The fact is that a Z-1 (Speed 6) can do as many as 32 HETs in a single turn under (G7.55) (requiring it to be tractored by 32 different tractor beams, admittedly). Are you going to say that the fighter is thus able to move speed 166 by using all this energy? Or that a Z-Y can move speed 175 normally?"

Reply: No, I did not try to justify a fighter speed of 166 (or 175 or whatever).

SPP posted:"Jeff Wile Said: "This rule is effectively in the same kind of catagory as emergency life support energy costs for crippled star ships. (see rule B3.1, 7. life Support and Rule S2.4).

REPLY: No, it is not."

Reply: OK.

SPP Posted:
"Jeff While Said: "SPP:
"I also did not want to get into a complicated discussion as to what "constituted" "fully loaded" (re item#2). it was an attempt to keep the proposed rule simple and not require players to have to treat fighters using afterburners differently than fighters not using after burners with reguard to turn modes."

REPLY: Then why did you even add that as part of your proposal? So that you could "graciously delete it" in hopes that by giving up something you would get your idea accepted? YOU wrote it into your proposal, so obviously YOU did not think it was too complicated a discussion to get into. So I guess you only included it in hopes that, as I have noted, you could agree to dropping this "complicated part" of your proposal to make the rest of it acceptable? "

Reply:

No, I did not include it, in anticipation of a future deletion.

It was as I stated: An blatant attempt to avoid the very kind of post - counter post - discussion that you and I have now engaged in.

You have successfully "led me down the garden path" on a subject that it is obvious, I should not have opened.

Thank you for the courteous responses and your patience in dealing with yet another of my proposals.

I see no need to keep this thread open, I would like to formally withdraw it from consideration by the proposals board, and request that it be closed.

Thank you.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

I was not, to the best of my knowledge, leading you down a garden path. Nor was I trying to do anything to be upsetting. I was trying to point where problems were and where a rule was mis-read or misinterpreted. I have no problem with you citing rules to support your proposal, but when a rule says something other than is indicated, I have to point out the contradiction.

There are problems with the basic proposal that would have had to have been overcome. The simple fact that fighters movement covers a spectrum of speed 6 (Klingon Z-1) to speed 15 (too many to list), and yet all can make up to 32 HETs a turn (although obviously that would be an extreme case). Even if you only work with the one "normal" HET a turn, you are still trapped by the differences in speed. Even if you want this to only be a "run away from combat" situation, the "offensive value" of adding five hexes of movement in the period prior to warp packs and mega-packs means it would be used offensively. (Picture the nine speed 15 Stinger fighters from that Hydran Ranger lunging down on you at speed 20 instead of speed 15 and imagine the tactical effects of that fact. It changes to a great extent the whole rythm of combat on the Hydran Front during the first five years of the General War. Juat adding this would change the BPVs of every fighter.

I cannot imagine a rule that you could write that would prevent this system being used in the approach to a target. Trying to limit it to "unloaded fighters", i.e., fighters that have no drones, fusion beams, disruptor charges, plasma torpedoes, pods, etc., would still leave you with phaser-G armed Stingers screaming into close range battle assaults. So just limiting it to "empty fighters" does not keep the Hydrans from using it. (And what Klingon is not going to run in his Z-1s to get more value from their phaser-2s after they have launched their drones?)

Limiting it to "crippled" fighters would simply not make any sense at all. Things do not "get better" when you are damaged, i.e., you can move faster when crippled (speed 8 for a crippled Z-1) then when it is not crippled (Speed 6 for that same Z-1), or in the case of speed eight fighters (about ten of them in the game) go from speed eight to speed nine (four crippled plus five).