I dont have a problem with Lyrans having some fighters. I can see them trying out the concepts, and maybe building small amounts of there own fighter (like Jessica's twin Mustang idea).

What I dont like is how the 'non fighter' race builds CVAs and what not. I would much rather see the Lyrans totaly dump the fighter concept when PFs are availible. Instead of building fighter carrying Battle Control Ships, I would have rather seen them carry more PFs and zero fighterst.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Ryan: Obviously, we disagree, and it's WAY too late to be changed now. I can see the Lyrans continuing fighters after PFs (not that they were ever very big on them). You get the synergistic effect, not to mention a logistical benefit in not being limited to one kind of "ammunition" while not being saddled with six or eight kinds. Two kinds (fighters, PFs) give you flexibility that you're unlikely to be out of both at one time, but not the problem of always being out of something.

So while you're welcome to say what you wish we had done years ago in publishing the game, it's not going to change at this time and you need to focus on productive uses of this topic.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 04:14 pm: Edit

As for changing the official Lyran fighter history, I understand that it can't be changed. For things I think CAN be done, I would like to see two things:

1. Some kind of Lyran-specific technology or modifications that were applied to Klingon fighters, maybe late war, or limited basis - but show us how the Lyrans tried (unsuccessfully) to deal with a) the problems they had integrating drones into their fleets and b) the nervousness high command must have had relying on Klingon technology for their carriers.

Improved phaser pods, improved RALAD mounting (e.g. 2 RALADs on a type-1 rail instead of 1), improved variants of Klingon Z-P and Z-D, etc. -- I don't think these things have to be outside the scope of the historical canon, and would add an interesting flavor to Lyran fighters.

2. Workable conjectural indigenous fighters, for campaigns where Lyrans don't have access to Klingon technology. This is SSJ material, not J3 material, though.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Is the short-ranged cannon out of the question? Sure, it's Omega, but it's made by humans, based on ADD technology. It's perfect for a Lyran experimental fighter weapon.

SVC: IT WAS INVENTED IN OMEGA? WHAT HAPPENED IN OMEGA STAYS IN OMEGA.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 04:27 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Lyrans have access to the Klingon Z-D and Z-P so they already have those kinds of fighters, and can already hang ralads on their rails.

---

By Kerry Drake (Kedrake) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 04:42 pm: Edit

This may not be exactly the right place for this, and I'm sure its a dead horse out of the box, but what the Lyrans could use to help the "problem" is a way to "hiccup" an active ESG. Have it come down for 2 or 3 impulse in the middle of its activation so the fighters / drones can pass out of it.

Of course I think the fact the Lyrans use Klingon fighters is a neat idea. And Lyran fleets should not use fighters the way anyone else does.... just ask Petrick, its all in the tactics.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Andy Vancil:

You are in essence voicing one side of the discussion (perhaps outright argument) that was had in the Lyran Fleet Command on the issue.

There may have been one side that took Ryan Peck's view [Fighters? We don' need no Steenkin fighters (Ryan, please take this in the spirit of humor that is intended)].

Another faction was the view espoused by Mike Raper [(Mike, I know this not really your view, but I am using names to more personalize the example) We need fighters to counter the improvements we are expecting in Hydran fighters and the increased drone launch capability of Kzinti fleets with fighters that can otherwise overwhelm the ESGs of our ships or divert too much of our firepower to defending against the drone waves while the increased direct-firepower of the Kzinti ships pounds our ships to chutney. But it is a violation of our national pride to allow some other race to provide us with fightes. We must build our own. Besides, this way we will not be dependent on them for future upgrades.]

Then there was the view of Steve Petrick (Well, small units moving through our formations, whether fighters or drones, will interfere with use of the ESGs, and vice versa. Obviously we will need to carefully develop a tactical doctrine to best utilize this technology, but the threat of our ESGs being overwhelmed by the increase drone throw weight of the Kzintis and the improved Hydran fighters must be countered. Direct-fire fighters will not work as they must either be behind our ships where their weapons will be ineffective in most roles, or in front of our ships where they will interfere with the use of the ESGs in any case by being in the way. And the limite range will not allow them to cover a broad front in the counterdrone role while making them simply Stinger Fodder against the Hydrans. Further, the drones do not require any power to be armed, meaning the operations of the fightes will not seriously hinder the operations of the carrier through the diversion of energy reserves. Besides, there will be the advantages of interoperability with our Klingon allies . . . at least until the present war is over and, having defeated the Hydrans and Kzintis, we can look towards our future war with them.

And of course the Andy Vancil position [(Again, names used to personalize, not castigate or disparage) We must not use any technology that we do not develop ourselves. Even though drones have the advantage of long range, and selectable warheads to support the mission of breaking up Hydran Stinger assaults and Kzinti drone waves, we need to have our own weapon to mount on our fighters, should we develop them at all. If we cannot develop our own weapon, then we should simply not use fighters.

There were doubtless other sides of the discussion. Technically, at the current time, the game background suggests that the Petrick View won out in the discussions. Probably bolstered by the need to deploy fighters as a defense force on planets and bases to allow more ships to be sent to the front lines as the war clouds gathered (defense against small scale Orion raids on important planets was still a consideration). Fighters pretty much remained in production in Lyran space because they were cheaper than PFs and could do the defense mission, plus that inter-operability thing with the Klingons allowing Lyran ships to pick up replacement fighters in Klingon space (and vice versa) or from one another's supply lines.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 05:05 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

a lot more imaginative than I am

---

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Jessica Orsini:

There appear to be three reasons for the limited use of Z-P and Z-D fighters by both the Klingons and the Lyrans.

First is the simple problem that there were never very many of them. Remember that they only ever showed up on Klingon CVAs, and then only in half-squadrons. This could indicate that there were production problems with the type.
The second is the range problem. Being forced to close to ten hexes range to fire a disruptor, combined with the relatively fragile nature of disruptor fighters (and the variant Z-P) made them relatively ineffective in the role (added to their limited deployment in the first point above).

The third is related to the range and survivability problem, and that is the speed problem. A common thread on direct-fire fighters is that they are by and large either small, or slow, or both.

The Hydrans who worked on fighter engines the longest beat the speed problem (they got to speed 15 in Y170), but were not able to beat the size problem (at least in part due to the growth limit of the launch tubes), so their fighters are all direct-fire, but are only ten points of damage.

The Klingons and Kzintis developed a disruptor fighter, and they are both small (10 damage) and slow (speed 10). The Earlier Klingon Z-1 was huge, (12 damage) but very slow. The later Z-P was the same as the Z-D.

The Federation had the A-10, which was huge (16 damage points), but still no faster than speed 10. And was still built in limited numbers deployed on only on CVAs (replaced by A-20s or F-111s on SCSs) and Starbases, which again may indicate a limited production rate also.
The Tholians benefitted from expertize in building small units (their ships and thus their fighters), (14 damage points) but even for them their pure direct-fire heavy weapon fighter was slower than the superiority fighter (max speed of 14), although the speed differential was considerably less (only one point) than for the direct-fire fighters of other non-Hydran races. It was still there.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 05:33 pm: Edit

This might get lost in this ongoing Lyran Debate.

But shouldn't the Tholians have a better (more damage point) Heavy Fighter?

The Spider-3 has: spd=15,14 damage (1 space), 2P3-FA
The Spider-4 has: spd=12 16 damage (2 space), P2-FA, 2P3-RX, 2Disruptor(2charge), webspinner

Shouldn't they have a fighter that takes more than just 2 more damage than a 1-space fighter?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 05:55 pm: Edit

The Tholians have the best one-space fighters in the game. They can make do with an average two-space fighter.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 05:56 pm: Edit

I will leave comments on SSJ material to another topic.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 05:58 pm: Edit

Two RALADS per rail: and if the Lyrans can do this, why can't the Klingons (who use the SAME fighters!). And how long will it take the kzintis and Feds to figure it out? (like, a week?)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Did shield pods ever get considered? Could this be a "Lyrans first" thing. Then Klingon, Feds, and the rest in that order. I could see the Lyrans being prompted to develope this by the Hydrans use of direct fire weapons. Combine a shield pod with a EW pod and the Lyrans could keep up for a while. Then as others develope it PFs come along and change the whole doctrine anyway.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 06:54 pm: Edit

They were considered and not selected for development. While they might be considered in future, I don't think they do anything for the Lyran problem.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Okay...is there anything wrong with, giving Lyran "home brew" Fighters ( and possibly ships but probably not drones ) the ability pass through an ESG without taking damage ( kinda like Tholians through Webs ).

It would make the intergration of fighters and Fleets much simpler.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 07:51 pm: Edit

I have trouble with disruptor-armed Lyran fighters simply because arming the disruptors takes power, and Lyrans are already short enough on that.

IMHO, whatever alternative armaments that Lyran fighters wind up with, it should be something that does not require power to use or arm during the scenario if starting at WS0.

Something ADD- or drone-based makes a lot more sense to me!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 08:02 pm: Edit

So I guess I'm not really understanding the real Lyran problem. You see, I don't have much of a problem with the situation as it is. With the exception of slow drones, drone/ESG interaction is about nil for me. From the posts above I gather that some use ESGs at R3 all the time and in a fleet action ESGs are constantly bumping into each other. That NEVER has happened with me. ESGs in my fleets are only ever up for a few impulses. If their up longer than that then I made a mistake.

After getting pummeled by Kzinti drones, and Hydran DF I can see the Lyrans seeing the logic of using drones on fighters. Since it does not match their old fighting doctrine, it makes sense that they wouldn't bother developing their own fighters.(besides not waisting time on reserch with the war aproaching.) The only thing I think the Lyrans might need is an increase in Multi-warhead drone availability for use against Hydrans. If Lyrans could launch MW drones from their fighters, that would be quite a threat against the Hydrans.

In fact, the only thing I see lacking in the Lyran situation is there is no Lyran special flavor in the fighter arena. So what?

The Lyran problem?? I'm not seeing a big deal here. Does it have anything to do with F&E?
Sorry. Really, I don't get it, I guess.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 08:04 pm: Edit

ESG pass through: Not possible. See previous discussion regarding putting this on drones.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 08:12 pm: Edit

•It can't be something too short ranged of Hydran fighters will peck the snot out of them at R8.

•It can't be something too power consuming.

•It'll probably have to be something pre-existing or else it'll be too power ( and people will ask why it isn't plastered all over their ships ).

•It mustn't interfere with ESG opperations.


Guys I hate to be the one to say this, but the Lyrans need Stinger-Fs or F-16s or some other way of getting a gatling phaser on their fighters.


Personally, I'ld rather give them all Z-Ds and give the Lyran carriers all; a massive power providing REFIT.

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 08:15 pm: Edit

What about just stating that Lyrans have an increased availability of MW and swordfish drones? Write it off to prioritized drone orders/production (do they even make drone warheads? Maybe that can be the "indigenous" production sought by some - MW and swordfish warhead factories). As a trade-off, some warheads/modifications could be unavailable (perhaps armor, or some other thing).

Of course, this still leaves open the valid issue SPP raised in many posts - if the fighters are too specialized in the anti-fighter role, they are useless in the strike role. With that said: 1) swordfish warheads are multi-purpose and work against ships; 2) if I can neutralize Hydran fighters (well, at least it helps) that's worth it; and 3) if they can neutralize Kzin drones that's worth it.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 08:15 pm: Edit

Michael John Campbell:

I wonder how many times by how many different people that is going to be brought up and rejected. I am surprised that it is not on this topic as of yet. The last time I remember it being brought up was in the J2 topic:

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 03:57 pm: Edit

2) sheath pod - creates a tiny energy sheath synchronized to a ship's ESG that allows it to slip through the field - limit it to their carrier and its escorts.

Marc's was not the first time some sort of ESG pass ability has come up. And it is not the first time it has been rejected. The concept that the Lyrans could develop this is simply totally implausible (an ESG is not in any way shape or form the same thing as a web). And since it is (unlike web) not extra-galactic in origin, it could and would be copied if the Lyrans were able to develop it (no one can copy Tholian Web Tech, or Andromedan Tech, but Orions are able to use all other tech in our sector, even Klingon SFGs).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 08:16 pm: Edit

The Lyrans are NOT going to get gatling phasers!

We are NOT changing the SSDs of existing Lyran carriers, so power refits are DEAD HORSE.

Productive and constructive proposals are welcome. Stuff we've already rejected in this topic need not reapply.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 08:16 pm: Edit

Is 2 Ph-2s ( maybe one LF and one RF ) both bleeding their power out of the shuttles engines every turn, forbidden!?!

That would allow the Lyran fighters to counter punch the Hydrans range advantage to a great extent.