Archive through April 06, 2021
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: STELLAR SHADOWS:
Stellar Shadows proposals :
Feds Without Seeking Weapons:
Archive through April 06, 2021
Didnt the original A10 have a photon pod that was interchangeable for other weapons.
Assuming SVC's photon-4 was a light photon armed at 1+1 in a freezer.
If this is the only fighter the Federation has (size 1), you might consider the problems of diverting 11 points of warp power (assuming one EW fighter per squadron) for some carriers.
Small Aux (only 8 points of warp power at al),
Large Aux (22 points of warp power needed) only 16 to 24 (assumes APRs are converted to AWRs) available.
CVA 22 points of warp power needed, plus at least eight for the ship's own photons for a total of 30 out of 50 points of warp power (can make speed 14 in theory).
Fed Police Carrier has 13 points of warp power enough to move a little if it is not charging its own photon.
That is juse from Module J. So I suspect you are either launching one strike or not arming the fighters and at lot of photon tubes are going begging.
Eddie, while it is true that, back before "Doomsday," the A-10 was modular, that modularity was abused by way too many players (myself included).
What happened was that we, instead of using the A-10 in its intended role (that of a photon torpedo assault fighter), utilized it as a mobile Gatling gun platform.
While it is true that the USAF A-10 has one heck of a Gatling gun in its nose, the USAF A-10 doesn't use that Gatling for anti-fighter/fleet defense work.
At any rate, removing that modularity from the A-10 for the Captain's Edition was one of many changes that the Munchkin in me griped about, but as I've matured (feel free to laugh 
), I've come to recognize is for the best.
At this point, the only "Option for a Photon Torpedo" that I can see as worthy of the namesake would be something to increase the offensive capability of the A-10 for CAS operations, but I also know such a change would carry with it problems like crazy.
Petrick's power concern sounds like a reason for most fighters to be a separate superiority model without the photons.
We know from MRS shuttles that an ADD can be put on a single space shuttle, what if the Fed Superiority fighter has a single Ph-3 and an CDS-6 (or CDS-8 or even CDS-12), with the ability to energize one shot a turn.
Instead of an ADD, call it a Railgun......
Just have to determine Ammo Size so a determination on how much is carried....
Mounted like the Gatling on the A-10 (realworld),
Maybe even two, one on each side of the fuselage...
Can't forget the real world B-25 had a 105mm cannon mounted....
Quote:Didnt the original A10 have a photon pod that was interchangeable for other weapons.
Yes, and that ability is completely stripped in the change to Captain's Edition all those years ago. I seriously doubt ADB will entertain bringing that back.
Quote:Assuming SVC's photon-4 was a light photon armed at 1+1 in a freezer.
If this is the only fighter the Federation has (size 1), you might consider the problems of diverting 11 points of warp power (assuming one EW fighter per squadron) for some carriers.
[Examples deleted.]
So I suspect you are either launching one strike or not arming the fighters and at lot of photon tubes are going begging.
Yes. That is the case. That is 100% true. However, I don't see a huge amount of wiggle room here with no drones.
Do note that I am actually proposing a single turn of two points of warp for the "photon-4", not a light photon. The total amount of power doesn't change (and is in some ways worse), but it increases flexibility somewhat. Also, I am assuming the tube contains two charges (like a fighter's disruptor tube), so a fully loaded fighter is launched with two charges, not just one.
So, here's the mitigation: The fighter is loaded with two charges. That means it gets two turns worth of firing opportunities while outside running around. If we let the freezers hold more than just two charges (I'll have to check on what fusion freezers do; I can't right now), they could even get a full reload before the carrier has to start heavily charging things.
So, at the least, outside WS-0, they get at least one full load for "free", which means they get to last for two turns. With a re-reading of the fighter reload rules, maybe we can finagle another "free" reload (or partial reload) in there, too.
But, none of that changes the core issue, which is that a full load of photon fighters will cause huge power issues for reloads (or for initial loads if caught by surprise). This is, unfortunately, just part of having a power intensive weapon on your fighters. Plasma races have this issue. Hydrans have this issue. Vudar have this issue. This is just what happens with drone-less fighters and part of the lumps they have to take.
Again, maybe we can cheat a little depending on how other freezers work. Maybe we can make it cost one point of warp per charge. But this is an issue for other empires in the main history, so I don't see why this should be a deal-breaker here. It is just something they have to live with by not using drones.
As a further point of comparison, it might be worth looking at the size-1 Carnivon fighters from Module C6 in more detail.
Their "final" size-1 superiority fighter, the Jackal-4, has 2 FA phaser-3s and a single ADD-6.
Their "final" size-1 disruptor cannon fighter, the Hyena-3, has 2 FA phaser-3s, a single FA disruptor cannon with two charges, plus a pair of rail-mounted ADD shots limited to firing in the FA arc. The disruptor cannon shots are armed in the same manner as photon shots, save for their ability to draw power from any source.
The Carnivons tend to go with a 2:1 ratio of Jackals to Hyenas in a given size-1 fighter squadron, though they can deploy "full" squadrons of Hyenas from refitted starbases.
Also, the Carnivon MRS has 2 360* phaser-3s and a single fighter-type disruptor cannon.
-----
I would not be in favour of the "no drone" Feds being able to arm a fighter's light photon (or some sort of light photon equivalent) in a single turn of arming. In my view, it should be obliged to follow the same arming procedure that the FRA has to when arming their fighter-mounted light photons.
Also, whatever alternate derivation from the "baseline" ADD system were to be worked up for these "no drone" Feds, I would prefer it to have equivalent ammunition limitations to those faced by the Carnivons with their fighter-mounted ADDs, or by the FRA with their fighter-mounted SRCs.
Quote:
Didnt the original A10 have a photon pod that was interchangeable for other weapons.
Yes, and that ability is completely stripped in the change to Captain's Edition all those years ago. I seriously doubt ADB will entertain bringing that back.
Like it said it is Stellar Shadows, not really part of the games a such. Feds without drones are just a dream for Stellar Shadows, just like the Lyran TST, Regen Shields, so why not. Fighters without a range weapon of some sort will really be useless, not a real offensive threat.
I lean toward the one turn photon-4 for two reasons:
1) The description of the proton torpedo in P6 said it was possible for the Feds to make, they just chose not to. As such, it is fair game.
2) Anytime the "light photon" is mention, the whole light/heavy photon discussion comes up and there is a push for them to show up everywhere instead of just fighters. The one turn photon-4 avoids that completely.
The one turn photon-4 is just as legitimate as the light photon. Heck, they were even introduced in the same product!
On the idea of a superiority fighter, if you notice, I already described how they would work. They would be equivalent to an F-18, but with some number of CDS shots instead of drones. You know why I dropped them? Because I liked the suggestion from SVC that said to just use the A-18. It's also why I continuously state that if I misunderstood, we can always bring back the whole 50/50 thing and use CDS armed superiority fighters.
But, whether it is all A-18s or half A-18s, the power problems brought up by SPP are still present in full. That's still an issue that will have to have some mitigation, but will also end up being a lot of "live with it".
On the Stellar Shadows thing, yes, this is Stellar Shadows. That said, it is intended to be alternative histories, not straight up simulator material. Simulator material can be anything. Alternative history cannot. This topic is intentionally taking the more restrictive approach.
Besides, using the the pre-Captain's edition version of the A-10 is a great way to get anything rejected, Stellar Shadows or not. I'm not going there.
Fighters are power deficient.
Having dragged Petrick through thousands (yes, confirmed, thousands) of posts over the years on numerous posts for a dozen (or more) proposals (A-1,A-4,A-5,A-7,A-8, A-12, just to name a few...), it has to be said that:
A) you will likely find it challenging, (to say the least) to sell an assault fighter with a rechargeable heavy weapon. Mike West hasn’t designed a actual proposal yet, but his close system defense thingy has the ability (proposed) to inflict phaser damage on plasma torpedos. It doesn’t seem like much of a reach, that said system needs power to function. How much, has yet to be determined.
B)if he has to replace drones in combat for fighter, it needs to be able to inflict damage at, or about, the level of drones. Just to compare with existing phasers, a phaser 3 does up to 4 points of damage for a power cost of 0.5 points of energy. A phaser 2 does up to 6 points of damage for a cost of 1 power point. A phaser 1(not normally a weapon system found used by fighters) does up to 9 points, again for a 1 power point.
C) the 2 space, 3 phaser 2, proposal for a assault fighter was debated strenuously. Petrick pointed out that (other than the Tholians) 3 power points of recharging energy was more than the technology could provide. The Federation F-111 has 1*phaser Gatling, 1*phaser 2,1*phaser3, which requires 2.5 points of power generation on board the fighter, beyond that required for house keeping needs(life support, fire control, holding power for stairs charges of things like photon torpedos, disrupters charges or plasma torpedos for empires other than the Federation.)
If a CSD fighter is going to work, you will have to fit it into an existing energy budget for 1 or 2 space assault fighters.
If this “energized ADD” substitute requires 1 point of power per weapons mount for (at a guess) up to three shots per turn, means 1 such weapon would replace things like phaser Gatling 1:1.
That means up to 2 maximum on a F-111 type fighter frame(let’s call it a F-113 just for clarity sake.)
A single space fighter could Carry 1 such device.(designate it a A-3 for early year design of year 164-7 era.). It would not have any phasers, given the poor power generation ability of the technology at the time.
And the power limits mean there would be no kits available because of the energy required is more than the 1, 2, 3 or 4 space cargo shuttles of the time (circa year 160) could provide.
That means nothing like the B-17, B-24, B-25, series of kit bombers.
Mikes droneless fighters or bombers will need some other kind of buff to bring it up to the point where it can function as a substitute for A-10, or A-20 assault fighters.
Jeff:
First, have you actually *read* anything I have written in this thread?
A) Why do you keep saying this? I have fighter proposals explicitly listed above. Both for assault *and* superiority fighters. Just because you apparently don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist.
B) No, these fighters do not need to match drone fighters. We have Tholian, Hydran, Vudar, Carnivon, and Borak fighters that don't use drones. It literally can't be impossible to make Fed fighters work without drones and I am completely confused as to why this is being treated as insurmountable. As I have already stated, these fighters do not need to be as good as "real" Federation fighters. They just have to be good enough.
Also, the photon-4 is a decent fighter weapon. It has a range of 12, which is longer than literally any other fighter-based direct-fire weapon. That is a decent range, all things considered. I haven't done a side-by-side-by-side comparison of the other direct-fire fighters, but it should be good enough.
Again, this is a problem that has been solved by other empires *already*. I am just not seeing why this has to be unsolvable.
C) Why are we talking about suggestions that don't exist here? Where has anyone here suggested three Ph-2s? I have already stated what I think an A-20 should look like. And, really, there isn't anything complicated or controversial about it. If the A-20 is an OK fighter, then my suggestion above can't be considered a problem as it is nominally slightly worse (and uses the G-30 as an input point).
Why are you referencing the F-111? It doesn't exist here. I have already stated it won't exist here. If these Feds end up using a gunboat, then (pretty much by definition) the F-111 *can't* exist. If we do superiority fighters, then the nominal comparison fighter is the F-101, not the F-111.
I don't care about bombers right now. Bombers are irrelevant to the discussion. Once mixes of weapons are figured out for this A-20 or theoretical F-101 (that I haven't bothered with yet) and that is all settled, then we can move on to bombers. And they'll be easy enough at that point. And, without drones, we can probably kill half of them off, too, and have a simpler progression.
So, no, we *don't* need a brand new system to make Federation fighters without drones work. Like I said, Hydrans, Vudar, and Borak make do with *fewer* weapons. The Carnivon work with the same number of weapons. The weapons available are phasers, photons, and CDS. Those are directly analogous to drone-less fighters already in the game. They are enough.
While I am at it, this touches on a larger issue. One of the whole points of removing drones from the Federation is to make them operate differently. Removing the drones and yet ensuring the Federation operate the same as they did with drones is boring and pointless. The entire point is to make things different and present new challenges with otherwise familiar pieces. That fighters fly totally differently and force the player to operate completely differently is a feature, not a bug.
There are consequences to allowing a half photon to be charged in a single turn.
Be sure to outlaw the use of the photon 4 as a firing option for ships with the rules proposed so far. Even if it is restricted to Range 12 (or 10), a Federation ship in close could see the value of firing a four point torpedo every turn (eight points over two turns, arming cost two points per turn). So outlaw it.
SPP: Oh, it is. The techno-babble is that it has to be pumped through the freezers to work. You can't just fire it. It has to be charged, frozen, then launched. It is a completely separate weapon based on the original design principles, but expressed in a different way.
I assume one deck crew action is needed to load one half photon, or do you only need 1/2 deck crew action, and two deck crews could load it in eight impulses?
Note asked for Clarification: If the technobabble requires it to be "pumped through the freezers,": how soon after power is applied is the torpedo ready to be loaded? Note that rules lawyers will probably pounce on that vague statement to say that a photon cannot begin loading from a freezer that was empty at the end of the previous turn and had power allocated to it until 8-32 impulses later to allow time for the photon to freeze. This was not an opening with the two-turn arming cycle of the standard photon (or even the light photon) but arises with the one turn arming cycle and the need to "freeze" the photon. I am sure you mean for the one-turn photon to be ready when the power shows up (mid-turn reserve war power allocated to a freezer that was not powered or holding a charge at the time), but if you are saying it has to be frozen to be handled by the deck crew(s) it implies time unless you clearly state that it does not (rules lawyers are so much fun).
Yes. The fine details can be worked through. But, yes, needing to be "pumped through the freezers" is not mean to be a time-waste, just a requirement to prevent it from being used on anything else (including gunboats). I guess it could say that the torpedo has to be charged in a freezer, not "pumped through a freezer", and then loaded into a launcher.
Fundamentally, these fighter photons use the disruptor rearming rules (J4.84). The one exception is that (obviously) (J8.844) doesn't apply, and (J8.854), from the photon rearming rules, does apply. So, reloading a single charge is a single deck crew action. (They don't get a break over what disruptor fighters get.)
On the superiority fighters (see below), each CDS shot (whether in a fighter rack or mounted on a rail) requires the same time as an ADD/RALAD, see (J4.87).
OK, some people want fighters? Here we go ...
First of all, I am going to assume I misunderstood. Fighter groups are arranged in 50/50 split between superiority and assault. Groups of six (or less) can be either one or the other. Typically all superiority. But they can be all assault, particularly when based on a planet or base. Carriers with more than 12 fighters may only have up to 12 assault fighters. Double-space fighter squadrons are all one type (either superiority or assault).
I am going to use simple numbers for the fighter designations in order to not conflict with the "real" fighters. This doesn't have to be the designations used for the final version, but lets us get through the whole thing without a lot of dissonance on the designation numbers.
Also, the fighters below are the base fighters. They will have the various options for mega-packs and whatever. However, there are no C or D or similar refits, as they are included in the progressing designs below. There are also a LOT fewer base designs, as the lack of drones kills a whole bunch of weird paths. And, of course, there is no F-111 equivalent. That's killed by the gunboats.
There are no bombers here. That's a project for another post and time.
Weapons
Aside from the obvious phasers, there are three weapons available for fighters:
- Fighter photons: These are designated "phot-4". They do four points when they hit, use the photon to-hit tables, can use proximity fuse, can't overload. Each tube has two charges. Freezer boxes basically use disruptor freezer rules.
- CDS rack: There is a fighter version of the CDS rack that has four shots, and use the designation "CDS(4)". This is used on single-space fighters. Double-space fighters get to use a full CDS rack, which is designated with "CDS(8)". It can fire at most one shot per impulse. One of the shots per turn can be energized, and it does NOT have to be the first one. Obviously, there are no reloads.
- CDS Shot: This is functionally an RALAD, using the exact same rules. They are designated "CDSS". These may not be energized.
Superiority Fighters
Single space fighters:
- F-1: CDS(4), 1xPh-3-FA, 8 speed, 8 damage, 1 chaff.
- F-2: CDS(4), 2xPh-3-FA, 13 speed, 10 damage, 1 chaff.
- F-3: 2xCDSS, CDS(4), 2xPh-3-FA, 15 speed, 10 damage, 2 chaff.
- F-4: 4xCDSS, CDS(4), 2xPh-3-FA, 15 speed, 10 damage, 2 chaff.
- F-6: 2xCDSS, 2xPh-3-FA, 12 speed, 8 damage, 2 chaff.
- F-11: 4xCDSS, CDS(4), 1xPh-G-FA, 15 speed, 12 damage, 2 chaff.
Double space fighters:
- F-21: 2xCDS(8), 1xPh-2 FA, 1xPh-3 FX, 1xPh-3 RX, 12 speed, 18 damage, EW pod, 2 chaff.
- F-21F: As above, but speed 15.
The F-1 is based on the F-8. The F-2 through F-4 are based on variations of the F-18. The F-11 is based on the F-15. The F-6 is based on the F-20. The F-21 is based on the F-101. There are no F-14 or F-111 analogs.
The F-1 is the original fighter design, which then give away in progression to the F-2, then the F-3, and finally the F-4. The F-6 is the cheap export fighter. The F-11 is the advanced fighter. Any carrier in the main history that uses either the F-14 or the F-15 may use the F-11 in this history. All other carriers use the F-1 through the F-4 depending on the time period.
These fighters do require munitions (all of those CDS shots). The core armament is the four-space CDS rack, but later versions also get additional shots mounted on rails. (Basically, they are effectively jury-rigged to carry extra shots since they can't make the rack bigger or put in another rack on single space fighters.
Assault Fighters
Single space fighters:
- A-1: 1xphot-4 tube FA, 1xPh-3 FA, 8 speed, 8 damage, 1 chaff.
- A-2: 1xphot-4 tube FA, 2xPh-3 FA, 13 speed, 10 damage, 1 chaff.
- A-3: 1xphot-4 tube FA, 2xPh-3 FA, 15 speed, 10 damage, 2 chaff.
- A-4: 1xphot-4 tube FA, 2xCDSS, 2xPh-3 FA, 15 speed, 10 damage, 2 chaff.
- A-11: 1xphot-4 tube FA, 4xCDSS, 1xPh-G FA, 15 speed, 12 damage, 2 chaff.
Double space fighters:
- A-21: 2xphot-4 tube FA, 1xCDS(8), 1xPh-2 FA, 2xPh-3 RX, 12 speed, 18 damage, EW pod, 2 chaff
- A-21F: As above, but speed 15.
All of the single space fighters are direct stable-mates for the corresponding superiority fighter with the same number. The A-21 is based on the A-20. There is no A-10.
The A-1 is the original fighter design, which then give away in progression to the A-2, then the A-3, and finally the A-4. The A-11 is the advanced fighter. Any carrier in the main history that uses the A-10, F-14 or the F-15 may use the A-11 in this history. All other carriers use the A-1 through the A-4 depending on the time period.
These fighters are all built around the fighter photon. That is their entire reason for existence. Later versions get some CDS shots like their superiority companions.
There is no cheap export assault fighter because "fighter photon" and "cheap export" don't really mix. All export fighters are superiority fighters.
Obviously, all of this can change as needed. However, this is what I see as the starting point of anything else. Yes, they still have lots of problems with charging those photon charges. But that's still after the first two turns and with most of the fighters dead at that point, the energy costs should be way less. Plus, with the superiority fighters, there is always the option to just double-down with them and staying short-ranged.
I also want to point out that nothing above should be "out of line". This is all based on things that already exist in the game. These combinations are (hopefully) unique, but I stole liberally from Stingers, Jackals, "real" Fed fighters and more.
Recommend not using F-7 as that is the designation of the Shenyang, even if you are excising it from history.
Now you have to design the Gorn Fighters since they got all of them from the Federation.
Perhaps a different letter than “F”, or “A”.
What ever letter you choose would be instantly recognized as different from “real history” drone using fighters.
Perhaps “P”? Pursuit being an archaic alternative for space superiority.
Or make “P” stand for photon armed assault shuttles.
“S” might stand for superiority fighters?
Just reusing the same designations (such as “F-4”) would get confusing as it can be confused between this new proposed speed 15 +4*CDS drone less type, and the original speed 8, 2*Type IS drone/2*type VIS F-4 (published in Module J1).
OK, I edited the message to make the cheap export fighter the F-6 (which is OK, since there is still no A-6) and make the advanced fighters the F-11 and A-11.
Yeah, the Gorns will be fun. I know their fighters change because of this, but the goal is to keep them as close as possible to what they historically used. As a simple pass, that means we're looking at this:
- G-1 (exactly the same as the G-8).
- G-2 (exactly the same as the G-18).
- G-3 (exactly the same as the G-18B).
These are just direct translations of the F-1, F-2, F-3, respectively. There is no G-4, but there is a G-3D and G-3K.
- G-6 (exactly the same as the G-20).
This is just a direct translation of the F-6.
- G-22 (1xPl-F-FA, 1xPh-3-FA, 12 speed, 10 damage, 1 chaff).
- G-23 (1xPl-F-FA, 1xPh-3-FA, 15 speed, 10 damage, 1 chaff).
These are just direct translations of the A-2 and A-3. The Pl-F is so big it knocks out a phaser. There is no G-21, as they didn't try using a Pl-F fighter until after the A-2 was invented. There is no G-24, but there is a G-23K.
- G-30/32 (exactly the same).
- G-40/42 (exactly the same).
These are based on the A-21 and F-21, respectively. There is no G-101 equivalent.
This means that, despite the new names, the Gorn fighters are literally unchanged, except for the lack of a G-101 and that the G-10 is replaced by the G-22 and G-23. (And the G-10 was almost never used.)
While I haven't played with bombers for these Feds yet, I'd just say the Gorns only use their native bombers: BMR-A, BMR-B, BMR-C, and HBM. They may have played with a few Federation first generation bombers, but, unlike the G-52, didn't convert them and simply made their own. So, we don't need to convert any Fed bombers, and their native bombers are used unchanged.
------
That's my first pass at the Gorn fighters. This makes the most minimal changes possible, only really having an affect on whatever carried the G-10. (I think it was just the CVA, correct?)
That said, if desired, they could adopt these Fed's 50/50 split more broadly, and use G-2/G-22 and G-3/G-23 combinations more frequently. But that'd change SSDs, and I am trying to not do that.
[I know I am reusing the G-1 and G-2 designations, but I don't want to break the symmetry, so please forgive. Hopefully most people don't even realize there are G-1 and G-2 bombers.]
Eh, the current designations are good enough. Like I say right in the message, it is likely they will eventually change, anyway. This still gives an easy framework to use for now.
This brings up a rules question (when moving to the Gorn versions). Star Fleet Battles History establishes that shuttles, generally, cannot provide guidance to seeking weapons. (See Kzinti AS fighter). So there would be no reason to provide such to Federation fighters not armed with any such weapons. So when you hand them off to the Gorns, they would not be any room to install such (they are not designed for seeking weapons and no one would waste the space for a system they do not use).
Further comment: As planetary defense fighters operating from existing planetary defense bases.
Wouldn't the Fed refer the Gorn to the Kzinti on seeking weapon control (once the AASs were running)??
I actually have thought of that. The Kzintis would provide AAS, HAAS, and TAAS fighters over time. Probably a double-space fighter, too, at some point, too.
Big issue: at what point did Kzintis and The Feds get friendly? The Gorns would be completely be dependent on the Federation acting as intermediaries, and at what point would the Kzintis respond favorably to that? It needs to be around Y167-169 and that may be too soon in the Kzinti/Fed relations.
If it does work, I already have the designs.
Alternatives:
1) They steal Romulan designs and work from there forward. That's always possible, and the Feds/Skoleans can always help, too.
2) They skip right to heavy fighters and just roll their own. They can still get a head start from the Feds, but they do their own thing with fighters they can actually fit in. This would be a bigger impact, but gives a more interesting result.
The Federation-Kzinti ambassadors signed the Articles of Agreement in Y166. I assume that would still apply in this timeline.