Gary Bear,

Note that we're in the X2 Attrition Units topic.

Loren,

But fighters have warp engines, or they wouldn't be able to move that fast in the first place.

You want a reason why X2 fighters can't rearm hellbores? It only takes 1 point of power to charge a fighter-fusion beam (J4.832) but 2 points on each of 2 consecutive terms to charge a fighter-hellbore (J4.834). Note that disruptors also require 2 power in a single term (J4.842) and photons require 2 power for each of 2 turns (J4.852). (Technically, these are the power requirements to rearm the ready racks.)

The fusion beam is the only fighter-carried DF heavy weapon that can be armed for 1 point per turn. You can't, for example, arm a fighter-hellbore ready rack with 1 power per turn over 4 turns. So by Y205 (or whenever) fighters could carry recharging systems compatible with heavy weapons, but these maxed out at a transfer rate 1 power per turn. Thus, the fusion beam is (at least within the X2 time frame) the only heavy weapon rearmable while the fighter is in flight.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Fighters are an attrition unit as are interceptors and PFs. During the X2 era perhaps the technology allows the galactic races to build a 2 space fighter that has interceptor level shields.

By the time X2 arrives the galactic races will have seen/obtained examples of the magellanic fighters which use overdrive. Use a form of overdive on the above 2 space fighter instead of speeds above 32.

Weapons could be between an interceptor (PF) and a fighter; heavy weapons would take longer to arm [Ints arm weapons like a PF, which arm them just like a ship].

Two-space fighters can be carried inside a shuttle bay. An option would be to allow casual heavy fighters like casual PFs.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 10:14 pm: Edit

Joe,

But again, if X2 fighters are this good, why isn't everyone building them? As far as I can tell, SVC's edict that only the Hydrans ever built X-fighters applies to X2 as well. I might be assuming too much there, and maybe he is open to X2 attrition units for everyone. But if I'm correct, and only the Hydrans build them, that sets bounds for how good they can be. If they're worthless compared to X2 ships, than the Hydrans wouldn't build them either. But if they're too good, everyone would build them. So they have to be "good enough but not too good" and some of the X2 proposals are "too good". In my opinion your ideas fall into that category.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 10:36 pm: Edit

Alan,

Please consider the following.

The fighter I am proposing isn't better than a PF, which will still be around. My opinion is the discussion has focused only on one class of attrition unit, fighters.

I am suggesting X2 fighters would be built intead of PFs. The X2 fighter would be between an interceptor and a GW heavy fighter. So it would work with GW tech ships.

S8 limits the number of PFs. Limit X2 fighters the same way. The proposed X2 fighter would use GW-tech phasers, drones, plasma, and heavy weapons. I would suggest that X2 fighters can't have X1 tech anything.

The magellanic overdrive has limits such as: no HET, no EM, can't use mega packs or warp booster packs, a TM of three, can't use emer decel. The top speed of an X2 fighter should be less than the ST-X say 18, with a max boost of 12.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 10:53 pm: Edit

Joseph,

I'm afraid I still don't see it. What exactly does it mean to limit X2 fighters "the same way" you limit PFs? If a force can't deploy these in significant numbers, why would anyone, even the Hydrans, build them? Why not just put mech links on every X2 ship instead? The Hydrans deploy huge numbers of fighters because almost all of their ships are hybrids and carry fighters. Not even "third way" Feds can come close to fielding as many fighters in a single fleet as the Hydrans. But if these are deployable only in imited numbers, why would even the Hydrans bother?

And I doubt SVC will OK X2 fighters operating from GW-tech ships. Stinger-Xs can't operate from GW-tech ships and these would presumably have more sophisicated maintenance and logistics requirements than Stinger-Xs would.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 11:03 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Note that we're in the X2 Attrition Units topic.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 11:04 pm: Edit

I agree that the power requirements for a disruptor/photon/plasma are too great to recharge in flight whereas they are able to siphon enough power to recharge one fusion charge per turn. This adequately explains why the Hydrans did it and no one else did.

At its simplest we have:
St-X2 = St-XM + rechargeable fusions – some disadvantage
Fighter recharge tech only works for phasers and fusions.

Any naysayers so far?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 11:04 pm: Edit

I wasn't trying to be snarky. I apologize if it came across that way. People sometimes do forget which thread they're in and I thought You might have done so as well.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 11:17 pm: Edit

Alan,

Yes of course but my thinking is that to transfer warp energy is not something that can be done in such a limited space and the equipement to handle the containment would be too large, probably as big as a second or third warp engine. Sure you can generate warp plasma right there in the engine and the engine contains it but to facilitate the transfer to the forward torpedo compartment is too much equipement for a fighter frame. That's my thinking anyway.

But as I said, I don't see how you could argue against standard power transfers such a for a disruptor.

A major arguement against hellbore, fusion, plasma, and photon reloading could be made though by claiming there is a physical device that must be loaded with that is energised. Disruptors, OTOH, have no such device and perhaps would be the only non-phaser weapon on a fighter that a fighter could reload. One MIGHT argue that a fusion might not need a charge of special gases or that the fighter could produce them for a limited number of recharges.
Then it would be left that Hellbores, photons, and plasmas all require some sort of guidence and containment package that can only be loaded on the carrier, even if the fighter could manage to supply the required energy.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 11:20 pm: Edit

Alen,

Silly me. I answered before reading your entire post which sounds reasonable to me. Lets go with that.

Tos, I like it and would like the disadvantage to be half speed which is still pretty fast considering that would be speed 15. It's also a very simple thing to do and the enemy knows what you are doing so it shouldn't be at all imbalancing. It also makes it work with GW tech because speed 15 is definately in that realm.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Alan,

It is a general proposal. This is X2 era. Large fleets where the fed 3rd way was used is GW. To me, your Hydran example shows why the Hydrans need to be dealt with seperately for X2.

The S8 limit is 36 fighters or 18 PFs; so limiting X2 fighters to 18 creates what type of problem during the X2 era? I am not really following your line of reasoning.

The above posts would eliminate charging of heavy weapons by an X2 fighter. I don't have any disagreement with that limit.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 12:05 am: Edit

Joseph,

Note my 10:14pm posting, particularly where I said;

"As far as I can tell, SVC's edict that only the Hydrans ever built X-fighters applies to X2 as well."

I am working under the assumption that only the Hydrans will actually field X2 attrition units, though other races may field X2 ships that can carry older, non-X, attrition units in a similar manner to the Fed GVX or the Lyran X-ships with mech-links. So when I think actual X2 attrition units, I think "Hydran", and therefor, massive numbers of fighters. So in a sense the "problem" is simply that we are working from different assumptions.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 10:28 am: Edit

I think that if other races are going to return to attrition units there will have to be a very big reason to. The only thing I'm aware of that might do that is the Xork invasion and that is beyond the scope of any of our planning (we are supposed to be working on Y205-Y210 basic X2).

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 01:51 pm: Edit

I looked back through the topic and until Aug 2007 attrition units for a number of races were being discussed. The Hydrans are their own proposal for attrition units.

Ideas which can’t happen: X-mega packs; X drones on GW fighters; X-tech on PFs and fighters.

Ideas which seem to still be possible: XMRS; Modular Admin shuttles.

Why would attrition units still be used during X2?

In P6 SVC suggested that small “run around” ships with X2 phasers and X2 engines would be a dangerous opponent.

Trade wars. We have seen in R11 the advent of workboats and a lot of prospecting and cross border trade. Attrition units can check on lot more small ships and activities than a single ship can.

Basic idea: 2-space fighter with advanced capabilities: 2x5-box shields; uses Int EW rules rather than lent EW from the carrier or EW pods; have 1x360 arc PH-3 and 4xADD (can alternately be loaded with PL-Ks or type-VI drones); uses a modular weapons package derived from mega-pack technology (this would allow a game to be tailored to individual tastes-limited drones and scenarios etc). These fighters use advanced standard technology.

The type of ship these would be based would be an X-DCS. Perhaps some of the escort protect could be provided by the unmaned defense paltform (untethered drogue?). The consorts could be a standard XFF or XDD or both.

By Alan W. Kerr (Awkerr) on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Ok, how about this as a rationale?

Assumption 1: The warp engines run on a matter/antimatter reaction using deuterium and/or tritium (and the corresponding antimatter [anti-D2 or anti-T2]).
Assumption 2: There is some way to refill the tanks of fuel (D2 and/or T2).
Assumption 3: The Fusion Beams can use the D2/T2 "in the tanks" as the material to undergo fusion.

So:
To charge the Fusion Beam, you are NOT moving "energy", you are actually moving "fuel". You move some of the D2/T2 from the tanks to the Fusion Beam. The Fusion Beam now has "fuel to fuse". This "fuel transfer to the Fusion Beam" line could be built into the system that refuels the Stinger.

Moving "fuel" would seem to be safer than moving energy since, even at WS-0, the tanks are always "topped-off" (since there are no rules for "low fuel" for a fighter).

One other idea for limiting this:
A Fusion Beam reloaded this way can NOT be used in a "use two charges for longer range" firing mode.

Previous Ideas by others:
The reason to slow down to less than 15 (or whatever) is that at speed 16+, you are sucking fuel from the tanks too fast to transfer any to the Fusion Beam.

The reason that no other fighter can rearm its weapon is that 1) it's only fuel, and 2) a normal fusion beam takes only 1 point of power to charge. It's the "low power" plus "fuel line" than allows it. I don't know about Disruptors, but all other heavy weapons would seem (to me) to need "transfer conduits" that would take up too much space or be too dangerous to transfer to the weapon.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 03:05 pm: Edit

I see no reason to limit and track the two charge for range thing since it would take two turns to get those two charges or a full turn to add a charge at reduced speed. I think that is limit enough.

I'm sure that fusions also require energy but that would be the same energy used with any fusion charge.

I think it's been fairly well established that fusions, as an X-Tech thing, are the one non-phaser weapon that a fighter could recharge itself.

With the possible exception of a disruptor charge. Since the disruptor charge is an energy capacitor (it is a holdable disruptor and X-tech disruptors are available anyway) I don't see why you couldn't slow charge it (E.g., two turns of half speed per charge. Available on the third turn).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 03:44 pm: Edit

Runaround ships are not attrition units.

You guys are all wet. There are no such things as "X2 attition units" in the sense you are thinking.

Let me set you on the right path....

Start with a probe drone. Unmanned, remotely-controlled, expendable "ammunition" rather than an attrition "unit".

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 03:50 pm: Edit

SVC: Is it a reasonable assumption that Hydrans will use casual fighters during the X2 period?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 04:58 pm: Edit

SVC,

Are you thinking this X2 unit would be along the lines of the Maesron Tachyon missle or just a 2-space advanced drone which could have a DF weapon taking up both spaces or a phaser and generator allowing fire every turn?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 05:21 pm: Edit

Tos: I suspect they will continue their doctrine, but perhaps not in a way you expect.

JRC: What I am think about is for me to think about later. I just cannot deal with more thought streams at this time than I am dealing with.

I just didn't see any point in you guys going down more blind alleys.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 06:38 pm: Edit

Fully remote fighters perhaps. Maybe with almost none of the drawbacks the current ones have.

Or (this is sick) ships able to build there own fighters! (Runs for cover)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 07:01 pm: Edit

Still wouldn't be able to do a remote strike.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 07:33 am: Edit

On the high speed thing.
I don't see why we need to retain the linear nature of warp booster packs.
If way say that a system was developed to llow huge amounts of warp booster energy to act like impulse power then we can justify letting X1 fighters being limited to speed 31 whilst using boosters.
Likewise we could say that it was possible to develop a similar system that used huge amount of warp booster pack energy to mimic the ability of the X2 ships to travel at speed 32 for the X2 fighters (assuming ships can move at speed 32).

I personnally think that such a dynamic is worth artifically building in order to gain the new tactical dynamic that has never been seen before. Speed 32 fighters and ship having to deal with speed 32 type IF and VII drones.
Historically either one unit or the other has the advantage and I'ld like to see that changed.


As for remote fighters...
I've been thinking that if the Hydrans were to develop their X2 fighter as a miniturised super-sting with one pilot and remote control of some of the functions and being small enough to count as a single space fighter...then it might prove to be what the X2 Hydran fighter should be.
The crew loss reductions of remote control but if a scout jams your conection, the pilot simply transferes to another units or waits 8 impulses and trys to reconnect to the mothership.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 01:30 pm: Edit

SVC seems to be moving in the direction of RC weapon platforms.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Well that would seem to be where some of todays technology is going; UAV's.

Unmanned Fighter Shuttles: UFS
Remote/Autonomous vehicle: UAV
Advanced Remote/Autonomous fighter: ARAF

Such a weapons plateform would require advanced codes and an advanced AI capable of carrying out mission instructions so that if lock-on is lost the enemy cannot take control, even a scout. Regular RC fighters just return to the last know location of the carrier if lock-on is lost with the controller but an advanced system perhaps could receive instructions each turn (you only need lock-on during each EA) to give mission updates. The fighter then operates autonomously, avoiding seeking weapons, enemy fire, but can only attack one target per turn. Target card is turned when the attack occured OR at the end of the turn. New instructions can and must be given each turn even if only the same. If ordered to attack a target the system must have moved toward the target by some amount during the turn.

The AI is capable of determining safe speeds in asteroid fields etc. That is, it largely plays like a piloted craft. Flights (three to four units)are controled by a single operator.


Just some thoughts.