Well, lets look at the uses of each.

Type1 MP: The added Ph-3 is the best thing but for most fighters the extra two Type-1 drones means longer sustained flight in battle (less carrier landings). I doubt I'd take this model when building a fleet. The extra Type-6 aren't as flexable as the Type-1's of the regular MegaPack. Particularly if the cost is the same. IF this added four Type-6 then that would be interesting. However, I once proposed a "T" mount for a standard rail that would allow two Type-6 drones on a standard rail (side by side). SPP said he would hate to see that happen as whole squadrons of fighters would get too quickly wiped out.

The Type2MP: standard but with extra ECM. OK, same cost as existing mega pasks then I'd probably take this if published.

Type3MP: I would take this but I think it would break the game. The cost should be more than +50% and it makes the fighter into something is was never meant to be. I would be very surprised if this made it past Petrick.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 09:04 am: Edit

"an improved megapack."

What the Feds actually should do is make mega packs MORE AVAILABLE. If they made ALL fighters with magapacks the standard instead of the exception they have accomplished the same thing at less bother.

Besides, this would play up to the Fed strengths of Economic Warfare.

Another issue is that the Feds really should look at using their fighters and bombers in composite squadrons (being allowed to). So you have 3 B53 and 6 F18CM in VC-999. This would allow 1) Optimal loaning of ecm to fighters and bomber squadrons as they rotate for replenshment and 2) Optimal assignment to allow a mix of roles.

By Tony Downs (Whitetyger009) on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 12:38 pm: Edit

Michael

this is not an attack upon you so i hope you don't take it that way. this is NOT a fed weapon system. "maybe" the feds developed it first, but all other races would have this system in (at least limited) production.

i would invite you to look at it again and recomment on the system as it pertains to ALL races that use fighters. and if you see a problem or have a suggestion to improve the systems game balance then please put your idea foward.

Loren

well for the the type 1 pack we could add an add-3/4 instead of the extra light rails. and the plasma ks wuld be left alone. this pack doesn't add any standard rails

for the type 2 pack has its extra 2 standard rails, and a low grade ecm emmitter built in. this won't raise the max ecm level. (so we like this idea as is?)

type 3 pack well we could raise this to 75% of the cost of the original fighter and mega pack can also delet 2 standard rails off of the original fighter. how about that?

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 01:00 pm: Edit

I understand Tony, but MY point is that the Feds face increasing levels of deployed PF strength with mainly regular (F18 mostly) fighters. By ramping up Megafighter "pack" production they could hope to address this issue. Otherwise they face a serious and getting worse threat. The greater availability of Heavy Fighter carriers does not begin to adddress it really.

At the smaller fleet to squadron level, the effects of the third way on S8 limits is negligable. Even making the Mega packs cheaper for the Feds in ECONOMIC BPV (to reflect the economies of scale) would do the trick. Since you BUY at combat BPV, but assess Standard Vic Conditions at Economic this would make sense.

By Tony Downs (Whitetyger009) on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 01:32 pm: Edit

i understand your point but MY point is that the Feds are not the only race of the game. this system would be avaliable to ALL races. it is not my concern nor in my power to assess the Federation a cheaper weapon system. that would be up to people much higher and with a much wider view of the game overall than myself.

now my understanding of F&E are limited but what would the affect be of allowing the Federation a higher production of megafighters or cheaper megafighters, when the Fed already out produce all other races including the Hydrans who have more of a right to produce huge numbers of fighters?

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 02:13 pm: Edit

1) The Hydrans are poor and focused on Xfighter development. And they succeed in producing it! Too bad they can't build a "Megapacked X stinger" Now that would be scary.

By Tony Downs (Whitetyger009) on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 02:42 pm: Edit

ok now back up to before the x-stingers. the feds STILL out produce them. you can dance around this all you want but it comes back to the same issues. as long as you compare EQULIVENT eras and fighter avalibility you come out with the same thing. as far as i am concerned the feds really don't need a new system or a better avalibility for fighters.

now having said that it is logical to look at the over all galatic situation and say that an improvement would be developed to make the fighters more effective and survivable.

working from that stand point ALL races would have developed this system. now if you want to complain about the avaliability and cost of exhisting technology i would suggest writing up a seperate proposal and submitting it to the steves and making a new thread to deal with that as well.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 03:10 pm: Edit

the equivelent era then has the Hydrans not even operating in their own territory. Their homewold is smashed and the rest of their planets subjegated. The are only operating from the Lost Colonies.
While the Feds lose a lot of provinces in the early war they are recovering OK by mid-war and never lost their core systems or their capitol. The Hydrans did.

By Tony Downs (Whitetyger009) on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 05:24 pm: Edit

yes Loren you are correct and i would really be happy to debate this whole thing with anyone who wouild be interested in participating.

however this spicific entry is not for that debate. it is for consideration of weather a better pack system would be benificial to ALL races at the later years. this proposal is for the balance of such a system between all users of the system.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 09:42 pm: Edit

Mike Grafton;

I'm not sure what you're getting at in your 02:13 pm post. J16.248 makes it quite clear that the Hydrans can put a megafighter system on a Stinger-X.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 09:10 am: Edit

OOPs, I meant "Megafighter SUPER XStinger"

A 2 space X fighter.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 10:05 am: Edit

Hmmm... A Hydran X-tech heavy fighter with mega-system. That would probably get your attention if a squadron of them showed up on your doorstep.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 09:34 am: Edit

My proposal:

Federation "second line" or alternate 2 space fighter.

1) Primarily designed for use by Aux CVs and AUX SCS. SOME use by main line combat carriers when F111 or A20 were not available.
2) F&E effect. NONE. F118 (for lack of a better name. I personally prefer to call this the Corsair) already subsumed into the rules for F111 and A20.
3) YIS 1 year after the Kzinti field their LAS. Designed and built as a competitor to the F111. F111 greatly preferred for all roles by review board, but F118 put into limited service for smaller (poorer) colonial defense and service on AUX CVs..
4) Speed 13, increasing to 15 3 years later.
5) Damage 18
6) DFR 0 star
7) 1 Phaser 2 and 1 Phaser 3 fx, 1 p3 rx
8) EW pod, ADD-6, 6 type VI drones and 4 type I drones. 2 space bay. Can hold a photon IF loaded in an internal bay. Cannot be loaded with a photon if on mechlinks.
9) refitted (at same time as speed 15 refit) to carry 4 type VI, 4 type I and 2 type III
10) Later refit (say 5 years later) 2 type VI, 6 type I and 2 type III.
11) Final refit (a few years later) paired a type I and III rail (on each side) to allow carriage of a type IV on each set of paired rails.


OK, all the critics start complaining!

Persoanlly, I am thinking that perhaps it needs some more drones.

Seriously, I wanted to make a 2 space fighter that 1) Shows what a Fed less costly version would be like. 2) The expensive part of most modern AC is NOT the engines, it is the avionics and such. 3) I am STILL of the opinion that anyone that buys (or builds) 2 space fighters instead of PFs or F14/15 is insane anyway.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 10:20 am: Edit

I'd do away with the 6xVI version and start production with the next version. I'd also relax the restrictions on its deployment and simply state that this was deployed whenever production was insufficient to field F-111 or A-20 class fighters. Overall proposal 1 aligns with what I was envisioning.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 10:55 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I am STILL of the opinion that anyone that buys (or builds) 2 space fighters instead of PFs or F14/15 is insane anyway.

---

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 11:08 am: Edit

Mike West, I agree with you as to the relative worth of this fighter.

BUT, what I am envisioning is that the bottleneck is with Phaser gatlings and the LAUNCH a passel of drones all at once systems. Like I said, I think perhaps it needs a few more drones. The large number of type VIs is based on the early fighters all having a passel of them.

Perhaps it comes STANDARD with a couple of type IV rails early, so it has something neat?

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 12:13 pm: Edit

Just to note: I regularly buy Hydran Heavy Fighters in campaigns; I use Hydran PFs, but they are notoriously poor at defensive work. I have found the Heavy Fighters to be better bang-for-the-buck for colony defense. Perhaps the Hydrans are unique in this?

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Still hoping this will be called F-105...

Corsair is too good a name for this thing....Thud is so much more....descriptive..

Andy: Yeah, considering almost every Hydran fighter has a gatling on it.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 01:15 pm: Edit

"Cheap fighter-shuttle produced by minor worlds for local defense"? That's a bomber. According to the background the B-52 was used throughout the entire General War...

...ergh. I was going to say "Also, background states the aux carriers never operated heavy fighters", but apparently we're going to change that in R11.

Personally, I'm not so happy about the sudden prevalence of heavy fighters, because it makes bombers look rather pointless. Why even have the bombers when, suddenly, heavy fighters aren't rare anymore?

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Michael. Because
1. Heavy Fighters can be carried on ships and bases, Bombers can't
2. Bombers suck at dogfighting
3. Megafighter packs are more effective on Heavy Fighters than on Bombers

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 01:41 pm: Edit

MIke Powers, there are already Auxes that carry them. Look in R "System defense Command" IIRC.

Also look in J2. I think there are SCS auxes for everyone in there with heavy fighters.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Actually, bombers are better RIGHT NEXT TO A BASE.

Its when you get away from your base that heavy fighters come into their own.

The biggest advantage of the heavy fighter squadron (on a BPV basis) over a regular fighter squadron is the EW. Normal fighters have to have an EWF, which can be identified and killed fairly readily (by the tac intel rules and by observing who does EM and who launches what and how much...)

As for the historical background, the SFU canon says the Feds built lots of different designs in competition and sometimes built some stuff as alternates (like the A6 and F104, F20, etc)

By Jim Cummins (Jimcummins) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 02:11 pm: Edit

I was just reading Joseph R Carlson's idea about the ASC (anti-ship Cannon) and developed the mental image of a cannon with a cockpit and engines attached.

Might be something the Romulans might dream up, a mini mauler with a fighter built around it.

By Tony Downs (Whitetyger009) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 03:42 pm: Edit

this is all nice but what about non-Federation players? not all of us are fed only players some of us play other things. this is a nice proposal for the feds but what about everyone else? do we have any proposals for other racial fighters? one of the ways to evulate a combat system is to compare it to another design. so if the feds were to develop a new fighter what would the klingon response be? the romulan?

or do we not care about any race but the feds?

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Yeah! I second Tony's suggestion. Since F+E allows any other race to do the "3rd Way" and forgo PFs, we definately need new racial fighters to allow all races a "F-111" equivalent in SFB.



But seriously, why not talk about it?

You know, a Super Tribune w/ 3 Plas-F, 4 Plas-D, 4 Plas-K, Z-SHA (superheavy Z-H w/ SFG), St-U (UberStinger), etc.