Is there a game reason for limiting megafighters?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Tos,

I'm not sure. The stated reason in the CL rule is that megafigher systems were rare and difficult to maintain, therefore only deployed in limited numbers. By "game reason" I assume you are asking whether "unlimited" megafighters (they would of course still be limited by the standard limits on fighters) would unbalance the game some how. My initial impression is "No". The high cost would prevent that from happening. But I have to stress that I haven't fought enough battles with megafighters to be sure of my conclusions. In particular, I usually fight on a floating map so there might be issues on a fixed map that I haven't encountered.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 07:05 pm: Edit

CL# 36 has updated S8.0 rules, for megafighters, on page 69.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 07:36 pm: Edit

Joseph,

Uhhh... Yeah. That's what I said in MY FIRST SENTENCE of my 4:31 pm post! My problem with those rules is that I don't think the bomber restrictions make sense. I believe races ought to at least have the capability of deploying megabomber squadrons. It would be more difficult logistically to support 2 bomber squadrons in two systems if each squadron was 1/2 megabombers and 1/2 standard, than it would be to support them if one location had all six megabombers and the other had all standard bombers. The former would certainly be possible, and the strategic situation might make it necessary. But the increased logistics issues would mean that, other factors being equal, the megabombers would tend to be concentrated at a few high value, but threatened, locations. That's why I believe it should be possible for players to field megabomber squadrons.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Alan, it does make sense in that you're allowed 12 slots for mega-packages, which is 12 fighers (12x1), or 6 heavy fighter (6x2), or 4 bombers (4x3) or 3 heavy bombers (3x4). The restriction is on the number of slots available, not the number of fighters/bombes available.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 10:37 pm: Edit

It's just another way for "the man" to keep the Fed down.

PFs all get warp booster packs but dinky fighter megapacks are too rare. Uh-huh.
[notice I'm not smiling here]

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, April 28, 2008 - 02:11 am: Edit

For that matter, what about an Over-sized Squadron with mega-packs? Most of the fighters in OSs are less-capable than top-of-the-line fighters.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, April 28, 2008 - 04:40 am: Edit

Stewart,

I know what the restriction says but I disagree that it makes sense. I think that organizing it by "slots" isn't a very good approach. The basic organizational unit ought to be the squadron. Whether you restrict that to "standard sized" squadrons or extend it to oversized squadrons as well is a separate issue.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, April 28, 2008 - 09:10 am: Edit

I agree with Alan. The minimum number of mega fighters allowed should be one squadron of any size. I also agree with Gary. With the limitation on mega fighters, when will we be removing the warp booster packs from the second PF flotilla?

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Monday, April 28, 2008 - 11:17 am: Edit

You won't. No connection between technology used for WBP (for PFs or fighters) and techonology used for mega-fighters.

Says so right here in the specs and maintenance manual.

Whaddaya mean ya don't have a manual?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 28, 2008 - 12:00 pm: Edit

All fighters can have WBP so the connection is there (well, not really). Now, come up with a Mega pack for PF's and I can certainly see a restriction being needed.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, April 28, 2008 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Its not so much a 'needed' argumnet, its more a what's the point of the non-WBP PF? Maybe I'm missing something, but is there ever a scenario where you would choose not start with the PF WBP?

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Monday, April 28, 2008 - 02:23 pm: Edit

What's the point of non-MegaPacked fighters when facing PFs at 2 fighters per PF?

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, April 28, 2008 - 04:56 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

All fighters can have WBP so the connection is there.

---

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, April 28, 2008 - 10:32 pm: Edit

Alan,

I missed your post as I had the page open but didn't check before I posted my comment; honest I didn't see the red light.

The other part of the rule allows the Feds to have 24 fighter factors if 6 or all are F-111s (Fed 3rd way?). I think adding this to S8 is one way to address the bomber squadron issue: A PF using race may have 6 PFs or 6 bombers (heavy or medium) with megapacks., but not both as part of their force. The Feds may have 6 bombers with mega packs in addition to 12 fighter factors if the fighters are not from the same planet.

I would think a three or four space bomber megapack would be easier to build than a single space fighter megapack; you don't have fit the technology into a much smaller space/area. Also building a bomber megapack should be about as difficult as building a PF with warp booster packs.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - 09:38 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

(S8.318) Escorts for carriers carrying heavy fighters cannot rearm
those fighters (J10.11) as they have no ready racks for them. Such
escorts will be equipped with ready racks able to service single-space
fighters that race operates (as such an escort might be transferred to
a carrier operating such fighters, or the carrier might be operating
such fighters in addition to the heavy fighters), and will have the
spare drones or plasma-Ds needed to support such fighters. These
stores can be transferred to the carrier to be used by the heavy
fighters during a scenario under (G25.0). Federation escorts and
other units that use (R2.R5) can carry spare heavy fighters, (not
including spare F-111s which can only be carried by their special
FCFs) with one such fighter replacing two single space fighters for
campaign purposes. The ready racks on Hydran carrier escorts are
configured for the fighters the escort is operating; escorts cannot
operate heavy fighters.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - 09:41 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

(S8.312) If the number of fighters is voluntarily reduced, remove a
pro-rata portion of the stored supplies (drones, chaff, deck crews,
etc.). Reduction of fighters is limited to 25% of the original fighter
group, i.e., a carrier with 12 fighters could reduce this by 3.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - 09:42 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

(S8.317) One or two carrier escorts (no more than one size-3) could
be assigned to protect tugs, FRDs, repair ships, or convoys.

---

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Well, they should obviously be able to escort CV pods. And if cargo, why not repair? Or things carried as cargo, such as ground bases, base augmentation modules and Complats?

I agree that it does look abusable so that a battle tug can come with an Aegis Lancer, SpM, HDA or NAC. But I'd phrase it more to exclude non-CV battle tugs than including cargo.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Some escorts are great, for the BPV. Players will find any legal reason they can to get their hands on them. This is a loophole that I'd like to see tightened; though my comment was somewhere between insufficiently detailed and just wrong.

I want to have tighter S8 limits on escorts for tugs. What's a better way of doing so?

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 03:03 am: Edit

'Tugs (LTTs) may only be assigned with carrier escorts when carring carrier pods and assinged fleet carrier (non-FCR) roles."

Tight enough?

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 11:13 am: Edit

(S8.317) is definitely an exploitable loophole, especially for the Feds. Consider this currently S8-legal squadron:

BTL+
NAC (or - even worse - the NAE)
DEA (or DAR or FBE or DWR...all good SC4 escorts)

Add in a scout of your choosing if you like (a CLD+ is an especially sick choice).

Also consider the Hydran:

Tug+ w/combat pallet
NAC
DA
19 St-2

To modify the rule, I don't really have an issue with escorts being used to escort a carrier tug OR a tug on a non-combat mission. So I'd actually do two things:

1. eliminate the 1 allowed SC3 escort. SC4 escorts only, except specifically for carrier tugs on carrier missions.

2. Building on Stewart's suggested langauge:

"Tugs and LTTs may only be assigned carrier escorts when using carrier pods and assigned to carrier missions (not a support or cargo mission), or when using cargo, self-defense, power boost, or repair pods and operating individually or as part of a convoy, not with other warships. Carrier escorts, if selected to escort a tug or LTT in a non-carrier role, are the ONLY ship/convoy escorts allowed. Other than freighters, no other warships or Q-ships may be selected."

Effect: You want carrier escorts for your Tug? No problem. The best you can do is a self-defense tug escorted by 2 DEAs, or a Hydran self-defense tug escorted by 2 DAs and 15 fighters. The Romulans could also still put together a decent group.

Generally, it still allows what I think is the original intent of the rule while blocking the Monty Haul stuff.

'Course, the simpler and stronger solution is to just dump the rule altogether. I think that unlikely to happen, however.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 12:22 pm: Edit

How about:

Tugs and LTTs may be assigned one SC4 carrier escort when the mission is to repair or deliver cargo. Tugs and LTTs configured and operating as a carrier must have either one SC3 and one SC4 escort or two SC4 escorts assigned. Tugs and LTTs operating in a combat capacity, or any other capacity not covered above, may not have carrier escorts assigned.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Tos, a 'pure' carrier tug would be assigned the escorts of a similar sized (in fighters) carrier - ie as a CVE, CV, or CVA.

Thus a Kzinti carrier/scout tug would be escorted as a CVE, the Fed BTV is escorted as a CV, its CVTA as a CCVA.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 08:44 pm: Edit

How about we change it to:

Tugs and LTTs may be assigned one SC4 carrier escort when the mission is to repair or deliver cargo. Tugs and LTTs configured and operating as a carrier must have the escorts listed in their Carrier Escort Chart. If no escorts are listed they must have either one SC3 and one SC4 escort or two SC4 escorts assigned. Tugs and LTTs operating in a combat capacity, or any capacity not covered above, may not have carrier escorts assigned.

This would disallow the case of a CVL Tug with a single SC4 escort. Is that what we want?