This is a proposal by Wayne Crawford to provide a system by which fighters on two different carriers could be combined into a single squadron.

It has been proposed before and won't be approved, but it might go into Stellar Shadow Journal and if so it might or might not look like any of the various proposals we have rejected.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 06:48 pm: Edit

<> Daniel: Where is the Fed CVBG located? I only see the CVB and that carries 12 fighters. Remember there can only be 1-8 (inclusive) fighters on the ship for the Tandem Computer to work. If you haven't looked at the rule, look ate the messages above for the link. Finally, could you explain what you mean by 'open a can of worms'?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 07:22 pm: Edit

<> CVBG: Carrier Battle Group. No specific SSD that I'm aware of. Its an F&E concept.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 07:29 pm: Edit

<> Ahh, that is why it doesn't ring a bell. I'm not all that familiar with F&E even tho I do have it.

I don't think that the Tandem Computer would have a huge effect on a strategic level. I think its benefits are more of a tactical use. Just as labs have little strategic impact, but could make all the difference, if used at the right time, on a tactical level.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 08:49 pm: Edit

<> CVBG: Kinda hard to have a specific SSD, as the idea is you take two carrier groups (only one CVA/SCS) and glom them together into one mega-group, with the two carriers protected by the combined escort group and the whole thing counting as one fewer ship for command limits.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 10:58 pm: Edit

<> Even if races other than the ISC had the Tandem Computer (I'm assuming this rule flies ), the rule specifically states that the two ships incoperating it must be of the EXACT same hull and variant. So you can't make a SCS and a CV work in conjunction with the Tandem Computer. Not to mention the fighter/PF restrictions incoperated in the rule.

I'm looking at my first play test of the rule and the ships in about 7 days.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 11:33 pm: Edit

<> Wellllll, I must say, it would be interesting to see how two Fed CVLs manage with this rule. But then they don't have PFs so the BPV cost might no be worth it. Hmm.

Wayne: You might want to review the other races to see just how many ships could actually bennifit from a Tandom Computer. I suspect no many. Therefore the rule is self limiting. This is a good thing. Not that I'm suggesting making it capturable. I still think it would be too closely guarded and to easy to destroy to be captured. And easy to replace so the ISC wouldn't hesitate to purge it in close/risky situations. If the ship is not captured it is not exactly hindered by the TCs loss.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 11:40 pm: Edit

<> Loren: I did look over the other races and the only race that had a signifigant number of ships that might benefit from this are the Romulans. Many of their older hulls used for carrier duty had 8 or less fighters and if the ChickenHawk had a special sensor, it might benefit, as well. IIRC, most every race had at least on ship that would qualify.

Something else I've considered, replacing the 360 PH-1s with a special sensor and 2 PH-3s (LS/RS). This would allow the SCSL to be able to take full advantage of the Tandem Computer and only mildly decrease the firepower. Ideas?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 01:00 am: Edit

Submitions may include notes on alternatives. Make a note. Replacing the P-1s with SS are a big benefit. You might want to consider if the raise in BPV (like 10 each SS) would make it too costly a ship for the hull. In other words, would you choose such a ship over others if it cost 30 BPV each more. Between the two that's sixty BPV the other guy has to take agaist you. Also, there is the two scout penalty to review. I think that you can have a full Scout and a PFT without incuring the 100BPV penalty but you cirtainly couldn't have an aditional scout in the fleet and these are not real scouts and full fleets need full scouts for stratigic reasons. Though that is not really reflected in the game greatly.

Note:I'm working from memory and familiarity and not directly from the rules, so I could be just full of it.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 01:40 am: Edit

Loren: The only limitation I see in the rules is S8.35. Since most PFTs in Module K have only 2 special sensors (I hate using SS, I get it confused with suicide shuttle ), that I could write it into the rule that if the two ships with the Tandem installed have only 2 of then that they automatically count as the PFT/Survey Ship for S8.35. If there is something else that I'm missing, let me know.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 02:52 am: Edit

Reading the current rules, for the Tandem computer, the optimum use of the two ships is to have them fly in the same hex. Like that they can always both lend to all the fighters and don't need to decide which ship is going to pick up which fighter/PF until the last moment.

The rules on when the definition of a squadron/flotilla can be changed are too detailed and complex (and most of them deal with issues beyond the scope of SFB). Instead, use the standard rules for reorganizing squadrons/flotillas and state that it can be used to support any formal squadron/flottilla based on either ship. This is more permissive but fits into the rest of the squadron/flotilla reorganization rules. Or if that is too permissive, just say that the specific fighters/PFs of the respective units must be designated at the start of the battle and cannot be change.

I'd suggest treating it exactly like a cloak for destruction purposes (ie a separate check box) and not tying it to the control spaces.

I still think that allowing both ships to lend to the same fighter at the same time is too powerful and violates one of the fundamental limitations of fighter EW.

I think the special sensors are a bad idea. Since the ship's mission doesn't involve operating independent PF strikes, they aren't needed to find targets. Since a full squadron would have a PFS, lending to the squadron is less important. And in order to usefully get both into a fleet, you'll need to start modifying (S8.0). Again something that needs great thought before being touched.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 04:31 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Reading the current rules, for the Tandem computer, the optimum use of the two ships is to have them fly in the same hex. Like that they can always both lend to all the fighters and don't need to decide which ship is going to pick up which fighter/PF until the last moment.

---

---

Quote:

The rules on when the definition of a squadron/flotilla can be changed are too detailed and complex (and most of them deal with issues beyond the scope of SFB). Instead, use the standard rules for reorganizing squadrons/flotillas and state that it can be used to support any formal squadron/flottilla based on either ship. This is more permissive but fits into the rest of the squadron/flotilla reorganization rules. Or if that is too permissive, just say that the specific fighters/PFs of the respective units must be designated at the start of the battle and cannot be change.

---

---

Quote:

I'd suggest treating it exactly like a cloak for destruction purposes (ie a separate check box) and not tying it to the control spaces.

---

---

Quote:

I still think that allowing both ships to lend to the same fighter at the same time is too powerful and violates one of the fundamental limitations of fighter EW.

---

---

Quote:

I think the special sensors are a bad idea. Since the ship's mission doesn't involve operating independent PF strikes, they aren't needed to find targets. Since a full squadron would have a PFS, lending to the squadron is less important. And in order to usefully get both into a fleet, you'll need to start modifying (S8.0). Again something that needs great thought before being touched.

---

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 05:25 am: Edit

Wayne,
If each CV lends 3 points of EW to the squadron and EW is cumulative, then the carriers have 3 extra power that a comparable hulled carrier wouldn't. As the ship currently has a CWs powercurve, this will assure any squadron flying form one of getting 6 EW while the carrier still performs its normal duties.

Thats what a few of us have noted.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Mark: And there in lies the power of the rule. If there rule were to state that a fighter/squadron can receive EW from only one carrier....Hmmm....I was going to say it would complicate play but I guess it would actually simplify play. So then what you would do is hand off the EW as the squadrons maneuver from one carriers proximity to another. Adding an additional line about anouncing the hand off would be nessasary. You might even limit the number of times a unit can be handed off per turn. Say, like, two? Wow! What an interesting tactic that creates. One ship lends max ECM. At the point of a strike the squadron is handed off to the other carrier lending a little ECM and more ECCM for maximum effectiveness. After a minimum 4 impulses, the squadron is handed back to be covered by maximum ECM. Sort of a Decloak and cloak maneuver for fighters.

Wayne, I think that is worth considering. DKass had some exellent points as well.

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 01:49 pm: Edit

Just a quick comment. There is an example in R6 of a fighter squadron and a PF flotilla spread over two ships, SH196.0 Strike Force. It has an LDR HDW with 4 fighters and 4 PFs, and DWV with 8 fighters and 2 PFs.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Ok, I was just looking over the fighter rules again, and my rule did violate (J4.922). That ws not something I intended to happen, I just forgot about that rule. I have corrected it in the Tandem rules.

I will be taking everything down, because I'm not in compliance with ADB's online policy. I will request a new topic be started under 'New Rules' for further discussion (since this is the direction things are going).

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Jeff, and in that scenario, it regards the splitting of the squadron and flotilla as a unique solution due to the situation the LDR were in, not a normal fleet doctrine or testbed tactic.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 03:20 pm: Edit

<> A quick note to preserve sanity....

1. the tandem computer (allowing a fighter squadron to be formed from units on two different carriers) won't be approved. It's been proposed before, and if we wanted it to be possible it would have been in the game at the same time as the rule saying you can't do that.

2. It might go into Stellar Shadow Journal (if we ever do another one) and if so, it could be anything we wanted it to be, including allowing the carriers to be non-identical.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Wayne: Two things. One: You might want to post a link to these rules here as it is not in this thread. Two: You ship design is good on it's own and doesn't need these rules to be interesting.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 04:24 pm: Edit

SVC: I consider it high praise that my first attempt at contributing to SFB 'might' be considered for SSJ.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Loren: Now that I have everything squared away as far as the Online Policy is concerned, I will repost the rule to my web space. Thanks for the praise on the ship. The Tandem Computer rule sprang from the ship design and needs work, but the ship has been submitted and probably stands a better chance than the rule.


http://mywebpages.comcast.net/wcrawford/

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 08:53 pm: Edit

SVC. (J4.465) at least implies some type of software change being possible to reorganize squadrons. Under this premise, it would seem that, for a BPV cost, it would be possible to bypass (J4.461). There would be no need to bypass (J4.462-463). This would effectively allow 2 CVEs to have their fighters operate as a single squadron, albeit at a BPV cost (1 per fighter).

This would also be helpful in situations where large carriers are present, with their (normally) 3rd squadron being less than 12 fighters. An escort or other small fighter carrying ship could add its fighters to round out the squadron for the battle.

For consistency, you could still require the 32 impulses of (J4.465) for the transfer (change of electronic components), but this is, in all honesty, not a major change, in either impact or scope.

For play balance, you might want to not permit this to Hydran Hybrids and other non-traditional carriers. Giving this ability to Base-based fighters might be too powerful as well. For standard, traditional carriers, however, a small BPV cost would balance the game benefits while the bookkeeping benefits (less tracking, paperwork, etc.) would make it a welcome addition to players.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 09:21 pm: Edit

Yes, I was referring to the "campaign rules." SFB doesn't really deal with campaigns. They're long, confusing and useless within the context of a single scenario. Instead, put the "campaign rules" in a color text mention and only put specific combat issues as actual rules (currently "cannot be changed in combat"--be sure to account for the ability of outstanding crews to put spare fighters into action during a battle).

Yes, (J4.922) is what many of us were worried about--sorry about not mentioning the specific rule.