I have a proposal somewhere in the archives for a Klingon rack-launched, shuttlebay-recovered UAV. The actual critter was nothing exciting, maybe a P-3 plus a couple of drones.

Maybe I'll retool it to either substitute for Type VII or VIII drones or give the Klinks racks like the Frax have for those scads of IVs they shoot off.

I think the motto "so advanced, it's simple" or "so advanced the *rules* are simple" would be good to keep in mind.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 09:09 pm: Edit

I can see having a pilot be an asset for long range raids.
I myself may reorganise my X2 Hydran fighter so that at time of launch the craft can have the hellbore and both "double shotted" fusions and the Ph-2 fire "with the fire pull of the trigger" and then after the Phaser-G will be the primary/only weapon of the craft.
This way the X2 stinger could be used for long range raids simply by making a few changes prior to launch similar to setting a shuttle up as a PSS.

Although I could go the other route and have Hydran doctrine be that they use a mix of Fi-Con X2 Interceptors and ships and they only ever perform long range raids when the Fi-Con X2 Interceptors are part of the attack.
Maybe I could put forward both.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 11:48 pm: Edit

While trying to develop X2 Hydrans I ran accross some questions I have about X1 Hydrans and their Stinger-Xs.

1) Since all Stinger-X carrying Hydran ships are "fully capable carriers", how many electronic warfare points can be loaded to the fighters (8 or 6)?
2) Does a Stinger X have more than the natural 2 ECM & 2 ECCM of a conventional fighter?
3) Is the limit of loaned electronic warfare to a Stinger-X 8 ECM & 8 ECCM?
4) As an X1 fighter, can a Stinger-X who has more ECCM than his target's ECM, capitalise on a negative shift?
5) As an X1 fighter, can a Stinger X ignore small target modifers?
6) As an X1 fighter, can a Stinger-X use X Limited-Aegis?

Since I can't find answers for these, if no one can direct me to correct published answers; they might need to be written into X1R to have the Stinger-X opperate the right way.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 12:56 pm: Edit

Those look like questions for the Q&A topic.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Well I'ld hoped to put them in the X1R topic but all the X1 threads have had their tails cut off.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 04:02 pm: Edit

I had a thought about fighters in the X2 era.

I think that fighters can still have a role to play but the basic mission as attrition units will disappear. Rather, fighters would become fleet support units instead of fleet attack units.

The days of the super carrier or even the strike carrier would end. But you would see two basic classes of carrier continue. Small destroyer carriers with short squadrons of the class-3 mega fighters, and light cruiser carriers supporting a single squadron of heavy mega-fighters.

Further, if opperating alone they would require multiple escorts but when opperating in a squadron or fleet they would not require escorts (although you could purchase one).

The fighters role would not be to attack the opposing fleet but to protect the fleet and stay amongst the fleet.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 07:11 pm: Edit

The problem here is that attrition units are still viable in their attack mission. There is no reason to shift them to defense.

X-ships did not make attrition units obsolete. X-ships did made life harder on ATUs, true, but that's all.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 07:35 pm: Edit

The history says they were made obsolete. That shifted a bit to allow them the obvious use against the Andro where there were not enemy X-ships. But once the Andro are defeated the potential enemy is again X-ships. Once X2 starts, I would think fleet doctrine would shift.

The question is, will there still be a great deal of seeking weapons in during the X2 era.

I suppose there will be.

Anyway, I can see a doctrinal shift to fleet defense and no more large carrier duels.

But maybe that's the same prediction as fighter not needing guns.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 08:31 pm: Edit

The history may say X-ships made ATUs obsolete, but actual play has shown that statement simply isn't true.

Personally I'm happy with what the history says. Lots of fighter and seeking weapon counters make for a PITA situation. Reducing map clutter is a good thing.

Peacetime might also shift emphasis away from high-production, high-loss units like fighters and PF.

But "obsolete"? Nope. Saying it don't make it so.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 09:00 pm: Edit

What is PITA?


Of course, SFB play isn't real life where real lives are at stake. It could be that they went obsolite because they were just so deadly they couldn't get anyone to sign up.

Just like all your fighter pilots quit on you if you fire on your own fighter, they don't fly against X-ships because their fire is diminished against X-ship shields and batteries and power, and the X-ships weapons are tuned to kill them more easilly.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 10:20 pm: Edit

PITA = Pain In The A--

As for the rest, it sounds like you're reaching. Militaries aren't democracies.

X-ships aren't so massively good against fighters, let alone PF, to raise a panic in the more excitable races in SFB.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 01:07 am: Edit

I have seen PF squadrons go down against GW ships easy enough. All it takes is for a couple ships to make them their focus (and a couple lucky warp hit die rolls) and half a squadron goes pop. X-ships do the same thing but don't get as hurt doing it.

Fighters are safe IF you are using them strictly as drone launch platforms at R15+. X-ships do shred up fighters pretty good. You know those times when you fighter gets hit and the dice come up lucky and your fighter is one point from being crippled? That doesn't happen against X-ships. X-ships get a second chance to make sure that one extra point doesn't alude them.

Militaryies are not democracies but if you want to have quality people opperate your fighters and PFs you have to be able to offer them something. The pilots and PF crews are not slaves. If death rates are very high it is not worth the investment in training. Klingon PF crews may not be the kream of the krop but they are still highly trained people, and something of a special breed.

If you start having death rates of 50% and higher in attrition units because facing X-ships are that much more dangerous then you will have personnel problems. You will only get lower quality individuals and your death rates will go even higher.

Every empire knows that you cannot rely on slaves to perform well against a highly trained enemy. Even PF are a serious chunk of change. Cheap compared to ships, but not something you crew with a bunch of people with a death wish.

An fighter pilots. I'm pretty sure that those ARE a special breed. You aren't going to get them trained if they know they are training to die unless you have a very unique group like the WWII Japanese Kamakzis.

By Sean O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 01:11 am: Edit

I think this is a case of the SFB rules not accurately reflecting the underlying reality of the SFU.

In any case, post-GW, you don't have the same network of bases that you had prior to the GW, especially along your border areas. As a result, units which tend to place a large burden on the logistics system (carriers) will tend to be less useful than X-ships, which are less burdensome but have similar combat power. Shorter ranged units like fighters and PFs also become less useful for patrols, since they must operate from a base. In addition to that, after something like 20 years of war, a lot of the best and brightest had been killed. (SVC wrote somewhere that by the end of the war, attrition unit use had made manpower problems acute for all empires.) If sheer lack of technically trained individuals is an issue, it makes sense to use X-ships which have smaller crews relative to their firepower than conventional ships, especially carriers. If you look at the class histories, post GW the various empires stopped building DNs and BCHs in favour of X-ships. The same rationale would apply to carriers and PF tenders.

Would attrition units still be used for local defense? Sure. But I don't see many, if any, new carriers or PF tenders being built.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 01:50 pm: Edit

It's all in what gets the job done on the cheap.

If it's fighters, then it's fighters. If it's PF then it's PF.

Arguably, it's not either of those, so their wartime role gets diminished.

Just don't try to tell me that X-ships are so good against ATUs that ATUs go extinct.

Loren sez

If you start having death rates of 50% and higher in attrition units because facing X-ships are that much more dangerous then you will have personnel problems. You will only get lower quality individuals and your death rates will go even higher.

Every empire knows that you cannot rely on slaves to perform well against a highly trained enemy. Even PF are a serious chunk of change. Cheap compared to ships, but not something you crew with a bunch of people with a death wish.

An fighter pilots. I'm pretty sure that those ARE a special breed. You aren't going to get them trained if they know they are training to die unless you have a very unique group like the WWII Japanese Kamakzis

No argument with your examples.

Show me that X-ships have this kind of effect on ATUs. The backstory says they do, and we never disagreed on what the backstory SAYS is the case.

I take issue with how well the backstory matches gameplay.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Well, I'd have to produce an up-to-date scenario to really have a solid arguement at this point, rather than speaking from past experience. But past experience is all I can produce right now. I believe I have the experience to look at the potentials of each (data and such) and see the likely outcome.

Consider the old OOB discussion where we were a PDU being hit with drone bombardment. I needed to see if there was anything escorting the drones and sure enough there was a G1 in each direction. Two fighters didn't have a chance simply because the speed of the PF meant it could completely control the battle. It could touch the fighters from where the fighter could not touch it.

This is compounded with X-technology and slightly off-set by the mega-fighter pack (improving the speed but the X-ship can always go faster. The fighters can never outrun a ship capable of speed 31.)
This is further off-set if fighters are protecting a fixed location.

As for PF... well, my proposal didn't have anything to do with PFs so I won't try to explain their situation only to say that when one of those die, more expensively trained crew dies instead of a single pilot.

I never said extinct either. That is an entirely different term than obsolete.

The proposal I've made is that obsolete might apply to the earlier main line combat doctrins and that fighters may still find some active participation as a close in fleet defense role. Thier offensive potential may continue to be effective in a historical vaccuum but game play isn't enough to account for the flow of history.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 02:33 pm: Edit

The X-ship squadron vs CV group exchange.

There are several ways a fighter squadron might engage an enemy squadron. Very common is to launch a wave of drones and follow up behind that with a second wave launched the following turn and if there are assault fighters, they close in to fire their weapons.

Fighter rely heavilly on the small target modifier and EW from the carrier to get close enough to make these attacks effective. X-ships have both the ability to even out the EW situation and may even gain enough to off-set the STM. If the X-ship squadron has a scout, it's a done deal. Further, X-ships have more phasers (a question for X2) and the power to back them. The fighters could be looking at 100 BPV of force getting crippled on the first turn of engagement at range. Would you expect to win starting a battle at -100 BPV?
Meanwhile, the heavy weapon exchange remains even between the two main fleets.

Facing X-ships, fighters cannot be effective enough to do what they were designed to do. Circumstances may vary but I wouldn't expect fighters to perform at a win 50% with equal BPV. Thus, they are deemed obsolete. I would add that is true given their designed fighting doctrin.
I suggest a new doctrin may prove their use.

As for PFs, there is a similar situation. I suggest that even if the empires that opperate them discontinue to use them in front line fleet combat, the PF-G's mission is not so inhibited (since you kill the ground-to-space defenses ahead of time, X-tech is irrelevant).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 02:50 pm: Edit

For whatever my limited experience is worth, I have generally found that non-drone-using fighters with warp boost packs have a lot of trouble against X-ships. (My two favorite empires, the Tholians and Romulans, both fall into this category.) If the packs are turned on the fighters are too fragile and if they are turned off the fighters have great difficulty getting into good position. Loren already acknowledged in a post yesterday that drone-using fighters can engage from long range in comparative safety. But the greatly improved seeking weapon defense of X-squadrons made this long range bombardment less useful. But it wasn't useless, especially when used to support a direct attack by other friendly units including friendly X-ships. And even non-drone-users can often use mega-fighters and PFs effectively in an X-ship environment. This is dependent on the specific tactical situation, and X-ships certainly make things harder even for PFs. But the situation is not so dire that (top-of-the-line) attrition units are useless against X-ships.

I think the best way to reconcile the tension between the back story and game play experience is that X-ships made attrition units obsolete gradually. While not useless, they became comparatively less cost effective because they would suffer higher losses than before and have less tactical effect. So empires tended to use their attrition units specifically in those circumstances where they remained highly valuable. But as X-ships became more numerous, those circumstances became fewer and the GW-era deployments of vast numbers of fighter squadrons or PF flotillas no longer made sense. But the empires did retain a small core of their PFs and mega-fighters for use in those specific situations in which they provided valuable service even against X-tech.

Just my .02 quatloos worth.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Loren,

Here's where I take issue with your "The X-ship squadron vs CV group exchange." example. A well played non-X cruiser squadron can often manhandle (thinghandle?) an equal BPV CV group. I've seen this a number of times. It depends on the specific tactical situation. The issue is whether attrition units can be effective in an X-ship environment as part of a "combined" fleet. And, again depending on the tactical specifics, I have seen them be effective in that environment a number of times, as well.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Fighters can start launching drones at range-35. Nobody is effective at 35. Or even 30 Or even 25.

Let's do some math based on your claims for how much damage an x-ship can do at range.

Assuming 15 BPV per C- or D-model fighter you're killing (remember when X-ships come into widespread use) 100 BPV boils down to somewhere between 6-7 drone fighters. At, say, 10 HP average each, we are talking on the order of 70 points of damage "at range", which means using standard loads.

Assuming perfect accuracy (a bad assumption) We are talking about 3 prox photons or 4-5 disruptors to kill each fighter, giving us an x-squadron as having nothing less than 7x3 = 21 heavy weapons. Accounting for misses, you need about one X-cruiser for each fighter you're killing at range.

Assuming equal BPV and 250 per X-curiser, we're talking a force in the 1500-1750 BPV range, minimum. probably more like 2000 if you're taking a scout on top of everything else. What can I buy with that much?

I'll have a DN-based CVA group, plus escorts, plus combat ships throwing drones at you. Just HOW many drones is that? You'll be glad you have rapid-pulse phasers because you will be using them as fast as they recycle or you'll be using your superior speed and maneuverability to selectively run away in order to survive. The masters help you if you weasel.

Then we can talk shipboard heavy weapons from my feet and what they'll do to the X-ships. My side will have plenty of offensive phasers to throw at you because your X-ships, even if they have drones, can't muster a drone wave that will cause my defense to break a sweat.

The x-ships will probably have the upper hand because they are often a little under-valued. You might even win. But you won't win easily and you'll know you've been in a fight and the fighters will do their fair share of the fighting.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 03:11 pm: Edit

Alan,

That's probably the argument to make. Once the Andro war cools down, empires become more interested in durable assets, which fighters and PF aren't.

It's not enemy X-ships that are so effective killing enemy ATUs on the battlefield, but it's friendly X-ships killing firendly ATUs at the budget meeting.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 03:42 pm: Edit

If I'm fighting X without X of my own I'd rather use PFs than ships. Fighters are race dependent - Klingon/Kzin I probably won't, Hydran I probably will, Fed and Plasma I might.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 05:33 pm: Edit

John, you changed my words again. I said crippling 100 BPV.

And the example I was using off the top of my head was a three ship X-squadron.

Long ranged drone waves are easilly handled by taking them down by themselves without engaging in close combat with the enemy fleet. This can still leave forward phasers at R15 or maybe even R8. six Ph-1 will average (EW even, STM countered) six points at R15 crippling maybe one of three fighters without Booster packs or three with booster packs (six Ph-1 from each of the three X-ships) but at R8 the average is about double at 12, enough to cripple most fighters without BP. At R8 the fighters have a minor chance of scoring a couple points on a target X-ship with Ph-3s. Even if half are assault fighters the damage is not more than an X-cruiser can shrug off.

My estimate of 100 BPV of fighters going down was off but the point was that the exchange of damage is heavy vs light. This would be light vs light for GW ships because they could not overcome the EW and STM. This means the fighters can press the attack.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 05:44 pm: Edit

One reason game play does not reflect the history is because in game play there is a time limit. In reality time limits are more rare. The fact of the matter is that any particular engagement should have more than 100 turns or more ime to accomplish a victory.

So the X-ships above can focus their fire on killing, with impunity, only one or two fighters, then turning away and recharging. The damage is low enough that an X-ship can shrug it off (batteries will probably do it). GW ships would take damge that they could not easilly shrug off (save for a mauler).

Even if a game turn is a full minute, is is reasonable to guess that at any particular moment in most places, reinforcements are more than an hour away. Scenarios played assume a more rare happenstance that forces and reinforcement arrive in a timely manner.

SPP pointed out to me that the Klingon have less than three ships per F&E hex in their empire at the start of the GW. Now certainly those aren't distributed evenly but the point is that there is a lot of space more than an hour or two away in a 55 parsec F&E hex (60 to 120 turns).

So, history and the majority of doctrin defining combat data doesn't come from combat that game play defines.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 06:25 pm: Edit

Long ranged drone waves are easilly handled by taking them down by themselves without engaging in close combat with the enemy fleet.

How? You seem to be assuming that you can handle drones using rear-facing phasers. That may not be a good assumption.

OK. 3 X-Cruisers. That's roughly 750 BPV. I could probably swing a SCS group for that price.

You get one fire and turn-away for free and then every time you begin to turn to shoot you're slogging through drones in order to get your fire opportunity.

Who is using booster packs? I'll be using megafighters. My fighters will be over twice as hard to kill than you're planning for and I'll have 12 of them, plus a PF group.

By all means close to OL range. You won't have a phaser to fire when you get there. Then you take the SCS group's weapons.

It won't be a cakewalk. You might win. But the ATUs will pull their weight. You will not end up proving X-ships as the perfect anti-ATU monsters.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 06:47 pm: Edit

John,

While I agree with you in general about this topic, I agree with Loren about pure drone waves. The drone wave can be a very useful cover for attackers (whether the fighters themselves, PFs, or ships) to close. But if no one is attempting to close, the defenders have lots of ways to neutralize the drone wave. If the wave is too concentrated for phasers to handle, the defenders can use T-bombs or wild weasels. The attacker may have a lot more drones than the defender has T-bombs or shuttlecraft, but each T-bomb/weasel will take out many incoming drones in a concentrated wave. If the attacker is so far back that the defender can launch a weasel and still get fire control active and have the ship back up to combat speeds before the attacker can get into good shooting position, the long range drone wave just isn't that much of a threat unless their is a big BPV mismatch.