---

Quote:

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 - 04:43 pm: Edit

Tony, I agree with the issue, BUT the Feds are really the only race that built multiple types of fighters in each generation due to political and corporate issues.

Besides, by the time the Heavy fighters became common all the other races were putting PFs into service.

So the other races pretty much stopped (except for the Hydran Stinger X) research into fighters...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 05:41 pm: Edit

MCG:

concerning the proposal you posted at 9:34AM... IIUC SVC suggested dropping the ADD rack as part of the "space saving" conversion from the F-111 frame.

Perhaps this fighter should have to rely upon type VI drones rather than a ADD launcher?

(just a suggestion...)

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 06:38 pm: Edit

'So, Michael's question is still in force. If all races are given widespread, easily available heavy fighters, why would bombers even be used? '

The answer is simple...because they were published in J2....

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 07:53 pm: Edit

If you just use SFB to justify the existance of something then a lot of things have to go.

But in the case of Bombers you can use SFB to justify them IF you don't try to compare the Apple mission to the Orange Mission.

If you could get six Bombers on a ship then the Heavy Fighter probably wouldn't exist.

PDU's use Bombers because they are better for protecting the PDU from the general threat that they protect from. Don't site specific threats where a heavy fighter would be better because you have to be able to site that most missions it would be better.

Bombers provide a great sustained fire rate than anything smaller and put more energy weapons into the frey.

Would anyone say the a PDU should have twelve Heavy Fighter on two bases instead of six bombers? Well, if so then you have twice the maintenance cost right off which is more based on a per unit calculation than comparative size. Does anyone think that a Bomber cost twice that of a Heavy Fighter to maintain?
Given that Bombers don't have to be stressed for Starship launch and land they are probably built with cheeper and more common parts.
Heavy Fighters, on the other hand, probably have realatively high general maintenance costs due to their high tech gear.

Then there is the discussion of force saturation. There is only so many squadrons you can have on the map. The bigger the unit those squadrons are made of the greater your combat force.

Bombers protect planets and they are good at that mission. Having to deal with fighters is only one of many missions and one of the more unlikely missions but one it can handle in the proximity of their PDU. No, they won't be dogfighting if they can avoid it but that's usually the case with all fighters. Heavy Fighters suck at dogfighting too... compared to many regualr size 1 fighters.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 07:54 pm: Edit

Mike West. Yes, that sums up my post nicely.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 09:12 am: Edit

Mike Strain:

I also suggest that Bombers are EASIER to produce. The canon backgroud says they were assembled from (what I envisions) crates of assemblies. So you can have many small factories on small worlds build components and then ship the crated components to worlds for assembly.

So, personally and with ZERO actual canon to my knowledge, I get the idea that these things are BULKY and awkward. Hence the reason they can't be carried aboard ships.

PERHAPS, a rule could be made defining the amazingly difficult way they COULD be carried aboard ships already assembled:

PROPOSED: Rule number XX.XX Bombers are very bulky, using a large framework to mount weapons and systems. Bombers ready for use take the equivalent of 24 cargo boxes to carry for 3 space Bombers and 36 for 4 space bombers. Due to their relatively clumsyness they can only land aboard ships when both they and the ship are at speed 0 for 64 continuous impulses in the same hex and a tractor is powered. Ready racks for bombers take the equivalent of 3 boxes of cargo space for each "size factor" of the bomber. Bombers cannot be carried aboard normal carriers due to overhead clearances in shuttle bays and the size of the available hatches.

Bomber carriers were tried by most races, usually based on large ore carrier hulls, with a notable lack of success. Most races eventually useed these bomber tenders to flush the engines of bombers making longer ferry flights to worlds that were forward bases where it was crucial for the bombers to arrive ready to defend themselves and the base on arrival after a brief period to change crews. All energy weapons (fusion, hellbore, plasma, photon, distruptor and such) had to be discharged due to safety ocncerns before the bomber could land aboard these bomber tenders...

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 10:36 am: Edit

I do anything to visit Happy Bill Bomber Bonanza Blowout Sale on Vista Prime.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 10:42 am: Edit

Things exist because they exist. Sometimes the reason is politics, sometimes production or technology limitations force a less than optimal solution, sometimes its economics, sometimes a unit is built because it is better in combat, sometimes a unit is built because it is better at some mission other than combat.

The combat value of a unit as measured by BPV does not attempt to explain why a unit was built. EPV makes an attempt at balancing certain units in campaigns, but even then its not a true indicator of how much $ or how easily a particular unit was to build, its just a balancing factor used in campaigns and victory conditions.

Bombers exist because industrial colonies had sufficient technology to build them themselves. Those same colonies lacked the technical infrastructure to build F-111, so they built the next best thing.

The 'why' a unit is built isn't important except as background. What is important is that BPV allows us to balance the combat potential across a wide range of units.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 11:21 am: Edit

Mike G: Eech. Any rule that suggests that combat-ready bombers can be carried by a ship will be immediately used to justify the presence of bombers in any Patrol Scenario battle. "Oh, well, they just happened to all be out of the ship at the same time, and they just happened to have fully loaded their heavy weapons before they launched..."

I think that bombers (or at least the factors that represent them) can "react" in F+E, which implies that bombers have at least some interplanetary range. (Doesn't the background for the yacht suggest that you could fly one from Earth to Vulcan? Surely you could fly a bomber from Earth to Alpha Centauri.)

Tos: You're right about the technological base; but I'd go further--the factories to build fighters are expensive, and so are the fighters. Even if a colony had the money to build F-111, why would they build an "offensive" unit? A B-1 squadron can defend just as effectively as an F-111 squadron, and the colony isn't going to send its defense forces to attack someone that's too far away for a B-1 to reach (or too fast for a B-1 to catch.)

"Things exist because they exist." Well...yeah, but this proposal (an "inexpensive" heavy fighter) is trying to fill a niche that's already filled by bombers!

Again, we have the background question. We "know" that bombers were used by almost every colony planet, because fighter-shuttles were expensive and difficult to produce. If we suddenly have a fighter that, in squadron strength, approaches the capabilities of a bomber squadron--and it's "inexpensive"--then why did so many bombers get built?

Actually, this proposal reminds me of another oldie-but-goodie: The "half-space Light Fighter". This has come up several times, and it always gets shot down. The reason given is "if two Light Fighters aren't equal to one regular Fighter then there's no reason to build them; and if two Light Fighters are equal to (or superior to!) one regular Fighter then there's no reason to build regular Fighters."

This is, in terms of an SFB scenario, a "Light Bomber".

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 11:43 am: Edit

MIke Powers,

NO, the proposal is designed to fill the role of cheaper/ more available fighter for use on the F111 and A20 ships out there.

It is less capable, but due to bottlenecks in the production of freezers and gatlings was procured for use in less critical sectors. It was used RELUCTANTLY when F111s and A20s could not be procured on mainline ships.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Bombers have some benefits of survivability over fighters (i.e., the damage thresholds to reduce their firepower are higher). Their true strength is in attacking fixed defenses; defensively, their only benefit over fighters is that it is far tougher to destroy them at range because a single ship's firepower is not usually sufficient (against 1-space-fighters, you can narrow salvo the 4 disruptors and get a kill at range 15 - it requires multiple ships to kill bombers resulting in a bunch of damaged, but fully capable bombers).

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 12:46 pm: Edit

Andy P:

"Bombers have some benefits of survivability over fighters...Their true strength is in attacking fixed defenses..."

Wait, what? Bombers attacking fixed defenses? How's that ever going to happen?

Mike G:

"...the proposal is designed to fill the role of cheaper/ more available fighter for use on the F111 and A20 ships out there."

Right, but it won't stop there; if it exists, it will be used. Again, I ask: If an "inexpensive, easily-built" fighter exists that matches bombers (when both operate in squadron strength), then why were bombers ever built?

Remember that the "historical" reason for restricting F-14 and F-15 deployment was that they were "too large" to fit in the shuttle bay, not because of expense.

By Tony Downs (Whitetyger009) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 12:50 pm: Edit

has anybody here actually looked at the bombers?
has anybody here done a cost comparison to see "why" bombers exhist?

most bombers carry fire power nearly equlivent to a frigate. in addition they are nearly as tough as a frigate. things such as the small target modifer the EW pods are a factor that make them this tough but also factor in 24 damage points.

so a squadron of 6 SK-H has
12 hellbore
18 fusion beams
30 ph-g
192 damage points which takes 132 points
to cripple
in addition to this their economic bpv is only 147 for the squadron. in order to replicate the weapons this force has on frigates would take 21 frigates at a cost of 1530 bpv. and the frigates have less ecm support. how much would the equlivent ecm be worth to these 21 frigates?

would anyone like me to do a comparison to another type of bomber and that races frigate? now yes i used the largest bomber avaliable to the race but there again i only used 1 squadron as well, when a scenario allows for up to 3 such squadrons.

Why build bombers? a system that can not afford to build its own ships for system defense or produce enough to warrent a national guard unit could over time build at least 1 squadron for system defense. no they can not prevent the system from falling to a determined attacker but they will make him pay for it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Such a colony could raise the money to buy bombers, but of course could not build them.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Tony. You're forgetting a few things like
1. speed, unless you trade survivability (WBPs) or BPV (MPs)
2. weapon range. The HB on a CU has a range of 40 - 30 hexes more than those on the Bombers. The ph-2s can shoot 50 hexes, 35 hexes more than any fighter phaser.
3. shields. By keeping the range long (11-15), a single frigate can take close to 132 points of damage to destroy.

Michael Powers.
Steps to using Bombers offensively:
1. fly to solar system of enemy planet/base.
2. build bomber base(s) on outermost planet or large asteroid
3. have bombers fly the 400,000 hexes or so to the enemy planet/base
Bombers can likely fly to nearby star systems as well. Try defending a BATS against an equal BPV of Bombers and you will see their true power.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 01:34 pm: Edit

If asking the question of "Why such-and-such exists" you have to look at more than cost.

You also have to consider how something is paid for and how it is maintained.

Junior Miners Rare Metals Colony is looking to upgrade their defenses. They've been harrassed on too many times. They have some F-4s but the pilots are clearly nervoius about launching against that Cartel CR that keeps showing up. Yeah the F-4's are great for escorting the freighters on occasion but increasingly, as more mines are producing more product, their concern for their safty is increasing.
Oh yes, the brochure for the hot new Heavy Fighters in on the Governors desk with a spot of drool on it. The base that comes with them would have a great new corner office that would certainly lift his pretige... BUT, the Heavy Fighters are restricted and therefore require all these Officers and trained (and expecive) pilots and maintenance crews and worse the cost requires CASH and a huge down payment.

Ganimede Systems has B-52's that come with a training manuel. Local pilots can fly them and many of the common replacement parts have a replicator template and can be produced by the colony as nothing on the Bombers is a Technological secrete. The engines are standard grade so parts are common. Fuel isn't the ultra hight grade a military fighter must use.
AND the sustained drone launch rate is superior.

If JMRM Colony is attacked by a major military force there is nothing they could ever afford to stop it. But a DB raid is something serious and a much more real threat. A Bomber Group can put up enough initial force against a strong Cartel raid that they could delay the attack until reinforcements arrive (Star Fleet).

Now, in Star Fleet Battles are bombers always better? Probably not but SFB doesn't ask the question of why thing exist. It assigns them rules of operation, a battle value and an ecconomical impact value. Not that I used the word "impact" because EPV clearly isn't a "Cash" value or sticker price at the dealer.

Bombers exist because there are reasons beyond the scope of SFB to have them. SUch is the case with just about any unit in SFB.

It is easier to calculate such cost to capability on units purchased by a governmental Navy where the need of capability exceeds cost (doesn't trump it just exceeds it). Bombers are National Guard and have much more facets to their aquisition than the big rich Navy. The NG has to consider each colony individually and each colony does what it can for itself which means reasoning beyond the scope of the Master Fighter Chart.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Mike Powers wrote "Again, I ask: If an "inexpensive, easily-built" fighter exists that matches bombers (when both operate in squadron strength), then why were bombers ever built?"

1) It DOESN'T match bombers since it lacks a DF crunch to keep opponents at bay.
2) As a fighter, it may be that these have to be completed and integrated at some factory instead of at their destination.
3) Bombers are fairly effective IF they have a fixed field to keep their opposition from just zipping in, doing some damage and then racing out to fix shields. On a free floating map, ANY force of bombers should be easy meat for a frigate with decent DF firepower. Sit at range 15 or so (varies, but out of bomber DF range) and narrow salvo until a bomber gets hit and crippled. Rinse and repeat.

The canon is that the LDR and Klingons built TONS of bombers and they were a signifigant deterrant to offensive operations against them late in the war years.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 01:40 pm: Edit

I wrote a Bomber story which SVC has. IT is based on a fateful decision of a planet commander to attack what he believed to be the enemy setting up a supply point a few star systems away (same F&E hex). THe timing was critical. IF the supply base was set up then the secotor was fall and he planet would be attacked with impunity. If the supply point could be disrupted this could buy time for the Federation to regroup and retake the sector and ultimately save the planet.

I'm not sure it the story was fully rejected but I was told that Bombers protect their planet and don't go off somewhere else to attack anything.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 01:58 pm: Edit

As I understand it, there ARE limited historical examples of bombers being used offensively.

Rule R2.F17 states "During the final attrition phase as the General War stagnated on the original borders, the Federation made the effort to build bases for B-1's (and B-2's) within range of Klingon bases, but the Klingons responded by building their own bases for their own bombers. This resulted in a number of rare but spectacular bomber verses bomber battles in the original neutral zone."

Perhaps someday we will see either scenarios or fiction that portray bomber operations other than PDU defense... but the rule shows that not all bomber missions were defensive.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Andy: Okay, that takes what, three or four MONTHS? Bearing in mind that Bombers cannot be carried as cargo in a combat-ready state. Unless you bend over backwards to modify freighters and do all sorts of stupid things for the sole purpose of using Bombers to attack something. Don't you have better things to do with your money? And, yes, "maybe that's all they've got", but if that's all you've got then you shouldn't be attacking. Call the Fleet--after all, if you're got time to jerk around building a Bomber base in an enemy system, you've got time to wait for the Fleet to send a squadron out to you.

Mike G:
"1) It DOESN'T match bombers since it lacks a DF crunch to keep opponents at bay."

So then it isn't as good as bombers. Why are we building them, then? Are they better than two single-space fighters? If so, then we can turn the question over and start to eat from the other end: Why did anyone build single-space fighters?

"2) As a fighter, it may be that these have to be completed and integrated at some factory instead of at their destination. "

...so? That's an argument against building the things, since bombers can be built in situ.

"3) Bombers are fairly effective IF they have a fixed field...On a free floating map, ANY force of bombers should be easy meat for a frigate with decent DF firepower."

Again, so what? Bombers are supposed to be defending a fixed region in space.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Yeah, I thought so. My story took place during the Day of the Eagle but maybe it just wasn't that good and I got the nice rejection.

Anyway, this isn't about that.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Michael Powers. I can't see how deploying a couple of ground bases and unpacking bombers from storage would take 3-4 months. 3-4 weeks, maybe. As for the second part, why risk ships that can only be built in your home system (and a couple other locations) when you can instead risk attrition units that can be replaced much more locally, quickly, and cheaply.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Mike Powers:

1) "Why are we building them, then?" for several reasons, they can be toted by ships in combat ready mode; they can be carried externally which was even better when PFs arrived (most other races pretty much switched the planned external carried Hvy Ftr Scout CVs to PFTs); they are a decent bang for the buck IF you have a way to bring your enemy to battle (ie you are at or going to someplace thats worth fighting for).

2) "That's an argument against building the things, since bombers can be built in situ" Agreed BUT, you can't tote bombers over yonder for operations offensively or as a reactive force. Or for that matter as part of a military convoy escort group (say 2 POL and an AUX SCS). I agree that often 2 space fighters are NOT twice as good as the fighters they replace. And in real like, would you say a P38 is twice as good as a P51? A ME110 vs ME109?

3) "Bombers are supposed to be defending a fixed region in space." EXACTLY. So 2 space fighters are better AT BEING TOTED AROUND and can be deployed more or less INSTANTLY by a FCR. Instead of having to align tab A with slot B on a planetary base...

The canon already talks about these issues at length explaining that the PF made the entire concept of 2 space fighters obselete. The Feds compensated somewhat by "the third way," but by most standards 2 space fighters were not all that great a success. In real life look at the usage of the ME110 for another example.

The points I am trying to make are coming DIRECTLY from the background:

1) It was hard to produce phaser gatlings and Photon freezers for the Feds. So they couldn't build scads of F14/F15/F111/A10/A20s.
2) The Feds never get PFs. They tried to compensate (successfully or not) with Heavy fighters just like the Kzintis did. The KZinti gave up on their LAS and got PFs when they realized 2 space fighters would never match Pfs. The Feds had philosophical issues with PFs so they stuck with what they DID have.
3) The Feds would have LOVED to build all F14 and F15 fighters. But they had to settle for using scads of F18s. And the F18 is not exactly a best in class fighter. Just as this thing will never equal the F111.
4) SO, that leaves us needing additional heavy fighters (for when they just run out of F111s and A20) to keep the relevant bases and CVs filled up. Even if it was less than the best, it is still something.

LOTS of the issue is the "number of Fed Carriers" which carry heavy fighters as SVC noted. Part of the problem is that the Feds may have a lot of designs and prototypes, it doesn't appear they actually BUILT scores of each class. Others have already commented on this issue.

ALSO, on your SB or BATS, which would you rather have, a heavy fighter module with 6 F111/A20/F118 OR a fighter module with 6 F18? NO, you can't have PFs. And remember that your station will be the LAST to get F111s. ALL the GVX, SCS, BCS, NCL based hvy ftr carriers and such will get theirs first.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 03:32 pm: Edit

As for F&E it is NOT a 1 to 1 match for the historical canon of the General War. You'd have to be INSANE to produce exactly as they did (per the canon)

I mean:
1) How many CVAs did the Feds build? 3?
2) How many BCV/BCS did the Feds build?
3) How many DNs did the Feds have?
4) Why was the Agincourt a "unique ship?" I'd buy a passel of them if they were a 1 to 1 swap for the CA.
5) The limited production of Fast ships
6) The relative scarcity of F14/F15 ships (I think thay are all named in the various R sections). Perhaps 10 squadrons embarked at any given time?
7) etc.