You know, fighters are treated very inconsistently within the game system. One of the reasons that drone fighters are so much better than other fighters is that they can control their drones at what are absolutely outrageous ranges when compared to other fighter based weapons. In light of this, I have a proposal:

Single space fighters have an absolute limit of 8 hexes on all of their weapons. Phasers, drones, plasmas, disruptors, photons. Doesn't matter. NO weapon may be fired from a single space fighter outside 8 hex range. In addition, fighters must REMAIN within that 8 hexes to control its drones. If the fighter leaves 8 hex range, it must either transfer control of the drone to a friendly unit, or tracking will be lost and the drone goes inert. (Yes, this also means that fusions, hellbores, disruptors, and photons that are mounted on single space fighters would have their maximum range reduced to 8.)

Heavy fighters have an absolute limit of 12 hexes. The above restrictions apply to heavy fighters, however, their weapons and control can reach 12 hexes. (Subject to the weapons' preexisting limits. For example, fusions and disruptors still have a 10 hex range.) The sole exception to this is the F-111, which has a 15 hex range.

Note that this helps provide an added impetus to deploy heavy fighters. This is basically a 50% increase in the range of their weapons and makes them *far* more valuable than the "afterthought" status they currently have in the game.

Bombers (of any stripe) have their absolute limit out to 15 hexes. (So, the F-111 has a bomber's limit rather than a heavy fighter's.)

This will prevent drone fighters from continually hanging back and avoiding direct interaction. This forces them to get closer and *stay* closer in order to make use of their weapons.

BTW, this should probably also be applied to PFs, too. They should not be able to control their drones (or target anything with drones) outside 15 hexes. Seriously, if their phasers can't target something outside 15 hex range, it is rather silly for their drones to be able to target on something outside 15 hex range.

(And, if you want, Interceptors could be limited to 12 hex range. This would provide an additional differentiation with PFs and help make sure they are driven off the stage as fast as they showed up.)

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, August 31, 2009 - 03:03 pm: Edit

EWF?

I like the idea in general, BUT would say

Fighters range 10 (so the range 10 stinger swarm is still a threat)

Heavy fighters & single seat EWF range 14

Bombers, Interceptors and heavy EWfighters range 16

EW Bombers, Interceptor scouts & PFs range 20

PF scouts range 24

So the have SOME range, but not like the full up starships have.

And the scouts/ EW units become more important

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 31, 2009 - 05:27 pm: Edit

PFs are already limited to range 15 for most of their weapons as it is. So, nothing else should be longer than this range.

That said, making single space fighters range 10 instead of 8 is workable. I don't think the other ranges should change.

I also think that EWF and scout PFs should also be limited to the respective ranges of their base units. EW units should not get any special benefits above the base units. Maybe let them go one class up, but not more than that.

Again, the whole point of this idea is to force fighters to get in close. No more hanging back at 30 hexes lobbing drones in. Quit lolly-gagging and get in there and fight!

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Why didn't you propose this 20 years ago when it might have done some good?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 10:17 pm: Edit

There's always SFB: Revolution Edition.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 12:05 am: Edit

Jim,

Because I didn't think of it then.

Seriously, I never really thought of limiting things this way until playing around with the fighter rules for Federation Commander. That's when I realized 1) what the real problem with drone fighters were (the drones operate under completely different rules than other fighter weapons) and 2) there is no real problem with limiting launch ranges.

Quite frankly, I have no expectation of ever seeing a change like this. Mostly, I was hoping for a discussion that would either show why this was a totally crap idea, or why this would actually work.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 12:44 am: Edit

Mike

I think this more properly called a drone control proposal. This proposal negates Type-III, ATG, and extended range drone use by fighters. Essentially fighters become a direct fire weapon. They loose the ability to control ship movements with drone swarms. I don't think your basic idea is bad. It just needs more options.

Many more experienced players have discussed the impact drones have in fleet engagements; the game playability decreases rapidly as the number of drones and fighters increase.

I would still like to see Type-III, ATG, and extended range drones used by fighters. I think one way would be to add a BPV surcharge for each special rail or set of bridged rails (for Type-IVs). As a guess 5 BPV and 7 BPV. Also extended range and ATG drones could only be launched from a special rail or bridged rails.

The D17.3 tactical intelligence level needed by a ship to distinguish fighter drone loadout is I and the range is 10.

I hope some of what I have posted helps with the discussion.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 09:40 am: Edit

It most definitely does not eliminate the use of MW-drones or of ATG. Actually, in many ways, ATG becomes even more important, as it allows the fighter to leave once the drone is launched!

Oh, and it doesn't eliminate Type-III drones from fighters, either. Instead, it reduces Type-III drones to the role they are supposed to have: long range drone bombardment. Let's say that fighter firing a ballastically targeted drone (wild or tame boar) from a special rail is just dandy.

And this proposal does not make fighters a "direct fire weapon". It does, however, take away the absurd advantage that drone fighters have over DF fighters and plasma fighters. That DF fighters have to get to 10 hexes, plasma fighters have to get to 15 hexes, but drone fighters can launch from 50 (or is it "only" 30?) hexes is just outrageous. If their DF sensors can't target outside 15 hexes, why can their drone sensors?

Instead, this proposal would make sure that fighters have to get in there and *fight*. No hanging back lobbing drones at each other until one side runs out. That have to get in and get at least somewhat close to have any direct effect.

Yes, this does mean fighters will die in droves. But then, according to the SFU, they are *supposed* to. Heck, I think this would make fighters work more like the SFU (and F&E) show them working, rather than how they really work in SFB.

[Point of clarification: The "must be within range X to fire seeking weapons" applies to plasma, too. Plasma fighter just don't have to *stay* within X hexes because plasma is self-guiding.]

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 09:52 am: Edit

A few thoughts:

It actually doesn't bother me much that drone-armed fighters are the most effective. It's just not very plausible that every empire's fighter, or dreadnought, or X-cruiser, or whatever, will be an even match with every other empire's ship of the same class. Someone has to be best. It just so happens that for fighters, that someone is the drone-armed empires. And at least in my opinion, the drone-armed PFs are generally not as good as the energy-based weapon PFs. (I also think that Hydran Stingers are more cost effective than drone-armed fighters. The drone-armed fighters are better given equal numbers, but they are so expensive when the costs of any speed upgrades for the drones is factored in. Hydrans give you more "bang for the buck BPV".)

As far as playability is concerned, I think the real problem isn't the drone range. It's the number of drones a late-model fighter can carry. A single F-14DM or F-15DM can carry 10 drones (although 2 of the F-15's drones would be Type-VI "dogfight drones"). he Kzinti and Klingons aren't far behind. A Z-YCM or TADSCM can carry 8 drones. If the number of drones a fighter could carry were reduced, that would do more to solve the playability problem than limits on range or drone types.

By Sean O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 10:57 am: Edit

Changing the number of drones would require changing about a zillion SSDs, maybe enough to put you ahead of Tos Crawford on SPP's "most wanted... dead!" list. :D

Forcing single-space fighters to get to 8 hexes or less to launch and control the drones will tend to reduce the number of drones on the map simply because fighters will be destroyed or crippled before getting a chance to launch them all.

However, making heavy fighters unequivocally better than standard fighters could make this an issue... in the history, weren't heavy fighters actually largely a failure?

How would this affect fighters used for planetary defense? If the fighters are stuck near the planet to protect it and shelter under any ground-based defense weapons, then attackers could cause the fighters' drones to lose tracking by moving away from the planet.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 11:16 am: Edit

Well, use megapacks, and you get what you deserve ...

Besides, as Terry points out, whether you have 2 drones or 10 drones, you are still only firing 2 per turn. Having to get to range 8, and *stay* there, significantly reduces the chances you will get to actually fire all 10 of those drones.

So, the problem *is* the drone range. By being able to stay back 30 hexes (or more) away, nothing can kill the fighter. It is guaranteed to be able to dribble out its drones over the course of five (or so) turns. Forcing the range closer means it now has to *work* to survive long enough to get those drones off.

Heavy fighters' role in the broader SFU seems to be an ever-changing issue. However, they are *supposed* to be better than single-space fighters (the background says so). This would just insure that was actually the case. Also, heavy fighters died out because PFs were so much better than heavy fighters, not because heavy fighters failed to eclipse single-space fighters. In other words, the failure of heavy fighters was timing (released too close to PFs), not capability.

Hadn't thought about planetary defense, actually. That could be rather interesting. For the drones, don't forget that you can still transfer control if you want to. Plus, the opponent is going to have to get into close range anyway to do anything to the planetary defenses.

Regardless, that still supports the overall object of this proposal: Quit sniping at long range because everyone is afraid of ruining the paint job; get in there and *fight*!

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 11:43 am: Edit

Changing weapon ranges will also require changing SSDs, at least in so far as the listed BPVs will have to be altered. Also, if you change the weapon ranges for fighter direct-fire weapons, the fighter weapon charts on the SSDs are no longer accurate.

But I think the real problem with Mike's proposal is this; if you downgrade fighters too much you run into the problem of Why were they built at all? If fighters are ineffective, than published SFU history makes no sense. And I worry that Mike's suggestion pushes them towards that level of ineffectiveness. Of course, reducing the number of drones a fighter can carry also reduces the effectiveness. But I'm not actually arguing for that reduction, merely stating that I believe it is the source of the playability issue.

Finally, I haven't seen the problem that Mike has seen about fighters bombarding from "... 30 hexes (or more) away". Different groups have different playing styles, use different forces, make different tactical assumptions, etc. But at least in my experience, pure drone bombardment from range isn't usually very effective against mobile forces. Sometimes it will be. But far more commonly, if your force is hanging back and lobbing drones at me from afar, and I don't have to deal with fighters/PFs/ships fighting in close, I can handle the drones if I have BPV comparable to your force. Calculate the BPV, including drone speeds, of a Kzinti CV group. Then give the Lyrans a cruiser/destroyer based force of comparable BPV. If the only thing the Lyrans have to worry about is the drones, they can kill as many as the Kzinti can throw at them. It's when they have to simultaneously deal with incoming drones and Kzinti fighters/PFs/ships closing in for close combat that things get sticky.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Making fighters ineffective is always a danger. However, I don't think this proposal does that.

Assuming that we make the adjustment that Mike suggests of setting the single-space range to 10 hexes, it really doesn't affect fighters armed with anything but photons, drones, or Pl-F. Photons lose two hexes, and Pl-F lose a little leeway, but the only ones significantly affected are drones.

However, if it really is the case that fighters get in close in your experience, I can't see how my proposal has *any* affect on the effectiveness of fighters. The whole point is to force the fighters into combat range. If you do that anyway, you likely won't even notice the change.

And I really don't think there would need to be any BPV adjustments. This proposal just forces fighters to do what the BPV likely assumes of them anyway.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 12:15 pm: Edit

Having fighter drone launch/control sensors less effective than ship sensors is reasonable. Range 35 is too long. Range 8 would be too short. I could live with range 12 or 15 (or 12 and 15 for standard/heavy). This would be for normal drones. Fighters equiped with Type-III special rail drones should be allowed to launch them out to range 35. If the overall changes were minor the BPV could be allowed to stay the same.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Mike,

Here is why I think it does make a difference. Each TADSC (in our hypothetical Kzinti/Lyran battle) launches 2 drones at range on "turn X-1" and follows them in a couple of hexes back, along with whatever PFs/ships the Kzinti want to commit to the close range fight. The approach is timed so that the close-in fight occurs on "turn-X" and as each incoming drone launched on "X-1" is destroyed or hits its target, the Kzinti fighter that was controlling that drone launches another. So the Lyrans have to deal with 4 drones per fighter on "turn-X" instead of only 2. (Alternately, the fighter may launch additional drones when control is transferred to a Kzinti ship or the drone - if it has ATG - acquires its own target.) If the TADSC fighters couldn't launch at all outside range-10, they will often find (not always, but often) that they have to launch on "turn-X", the actual close combat turn, and therefore can't launch more drones even when their drone control is freed up. Thus the attack is less effective.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 12:44 pm: Edit

I basically agree with Tos' 12:15 pm post. I could see some level of reduction in drone tracking range for fighters, though as I have already argued, I think reducing it to 10 is too much. But a reduction to 15, with exception for Type-IIIs, might be good. I would not change any fighter/PF direct-fire weapon ranges.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 02:09 pm: Edit

The counterpoint here is it's one more special case to keep track of in a game loaded with them.

Drones are easily dealt with and dealt with in droves if you have a fighter launching them.

Yes it's more "realistic" and yes it's probably more balanced RE non-drone ATUs. Is it worth the player confusion and hassle of introducing it at this late date?

I'd say no.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 02:41 pm: Edit

I'll add to John T's comment and ask, how would one easilly differentiate fighter launched drones and ship launched drones? Then you have transfers of control and all that. Then there is the EWF with a drone control pod. Where does that fit in.

I tink it is easier to say that the fighters are recieving data from allied ships that extend their drone tracking range, which is not the same as direct weapons fire targeting. For drone tracking you only have to continue to identify the target. The drone takes over tracking in the final instant to hit the target (at R0). Since fighters can see all the targets on the map (no counters are hidden), it is reasonable to assume friendly ships provide the long ranged vision and there is no issue with sending the control signal as far as it needs.

I could see a rule limiting fighters control range to 15 IF there are no friendly ships or bases in the scenario.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 03:07 pm: Edit

If control is a problem, make the shorter range limit a launch limit and allow control out to the standard 35 hexes.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 03:52 pm: Edit

Reducing the range does reduce the number of drones on the map, simply because they'll be there for 15 impulses instead of 50.

The proof is in the pudding, so someone should playtest it.

By Joe Boorsten (Getterbeam) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 04:42 pm: Edit

@Mike West: Remote-control fighters can launch all their drones at once. And, like Megafighters, I doubt there's a single Patrol battle where every fighter is not remote-control.

In a way, I'd be happier to see drones launched at long range. It gives me more time to figure out what to do! 30 drones launched at range 3 is far more of a problem than 120 drones launched at range 23.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Tos,
for many scenarios I could live with that. But as things are currently balanced in the game system overall I'd have to say drone bombardments on fighter PDUs will become MUCH more powerful since planetary fighters will not be able to start countering drones waves early enough.
(This applies to several planet defense tactics against ship raids too.)

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Remote control fighters can launch all their drones at once, but then control becomes a real issue then because I don't think RC fighters can control ANY drones. At least that's how I've always played it.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 05:45 pm: Edit

IIRC Heavy fighters are more a failure due to the development of the interceptor/ PF.

And thus your heavy fighter CV is pretty much a direct swap for a PFT.

Which one would YOU want in your fleet:

A CV with escorts (lets say CW based CV and 2 DWE)

A CW based PFT with an accompying pair of DWs?

As for me, I'd probably take the PFT battlegroup.

THAT SAID, I am unconvinced (based on my limited and miserable experience) that heavy fighters are even twice as good as one space fighters. Especially for non plasma races.

Jeremy and Dale probably have as much experience as anyone. What do they say?

By Joe Boorsten (Getterbeam) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Doug: I don't see anything about remote-control fighters being unable to control drones; I did look.

Mike Grafton: Well, the reason the CV has CWE/DWE escorts is that the rules require that it have CWE/DWE escorts. (Indeed, the CV must take Aegis escorts, and the PFT can never take Aegis escorts...)