And it should be obvious from the above that the situation could "scale" allowing you to use everything from a squadron of heavy cruisers down to a squadron fo police ships or anything in-between.

There are ships designed for specific missions (e.g., drone bombardment ships, carriers, PF tenders, scouts, maulers, repair ships, tugs/light tactical transports/stratgic transports, forward carrier resupply ships, commando ships, carrier escorts, minesweepers) but general war ships are designed to be jacks of all trades (within the limits of the primary weapons) and matters of (as stated before) scale.

And obviously you can stick in ships with different weapons if you think it will improve your overall operable capability (e.g. D5L with a D5 and the third ship of the squadron if a D5D, or a D5A).

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Saturday, July 17, 2021 - 11:41 pm: Edit

So, as a preliminary idea, how would something like this sound? If I get the thumbs up I’ll work on it some more.

Concept: A campaign representing a long-term deployment of a squadron-sized flotilla under the command of a single commodore or officer of similar rank. The game is a series of nine scenarios, each of which contribute to the final campaign score.

Setup: The player selects a force of at least 3 vessels worth 300 BPV in total, a year to start the campaign, and a border on which to operate (defining the enemies encountered, I guess this could be optional).

Scoring: The player would accumulate points based on a scoring system similar to the U2.0 Captain’s Game’s system. Encounter Battles and Fleet Actions would be scored very similarly to U2.0’s duel scoring system. Base Defense would be scored according to its rules. Root Out, Planetary Raid, and Convoy Raid would be scored based on the economic damage, with a small bonus for military targets taken out. Escort would basically be the reverse, with points handed out for defeating or routing the attackers, and deducting points for freighters destroyed or captured. Monster scenarios would be scored as in U2.0. A Visitor From Andromeda would depend on the Andromedan’s objectives, but if the Andromedan ‘wins’ it would be worth 0, and if the player wins, it would be worth 5. Losing a ship would be a large penalty, as in U2.0, but the ship would be replaced. I’ll write up with a scoring system.

Repairs: Every ship always has access to G17.133 (Operational Repairs). A ship may sit out the next mission to receive a ‘free’ Overhaul (U1.4). One ship throughout the entire campaign may take an overhaul (U1.4) that does not require it to sit out a mission, if no ship does the player scores another 5 points as a bonus.

1. (SGX.1) Encounter Battle

2. Random Scenario Chart

3. (SGX.1) Encounter Battle

4. Random Scenario Chart

5. (SG3.0) Base Defense (as the defender)

6. Random Scenario Chart

7. (SGX.2) Root Out

8. Random Scenario Chart

9. (SG2.0) Fleet Action

Random Scenario Chart:

1. Monster Chart 1

2. Monster Chart 2

3. (SG3.0) Base Defense (as the attacker)

4. (SGX.3) Planetary Raid

5. (SGX.4) Convoy Raid

6. (SGX.5) Escort

Monster Chart 1:

1. (SM1.0) The Planet Crusher

2. (SM2.0) The Space Amoeba

3. (SM3.0) The Moray Eel of Space

4. (SM7.0) Space Dragon

5. (SGX.2) Root Out (vs Jindarians)

6. (SGX.2) Root Out (vs Orions)

Monster Chart 2:

1. (SM4.0) The Cosmic Cloud

2. (SM5.0) The Sunsnake

3. (SM14.0) The Ice Monster

4. (SM15.0) The Metamorph

5. (SG10.0) A Visitor From Andromeda*

6. (SG2.0) Fleet Action (vs Nicozians)**

* If the year does not fall between Y166-Y188, or if the fleet is worth less than 225 BPV instead the result is (SGX.1) Encounter Battle vs Jindarians
** If the year is before Y171, instead the result is (SGX.1) Encounter Battle vs Orions

Scenario descriptions:

(SGX.1) Encounter Battle
I’ll write up a scenario description for this, but the basic idea is that two forces of equal BPV face off. One ship from each side chosen at random is deployed like in SG1.0 The Duel, and the rest of each side arrives as reinforcements, rolling a die for each ship at the start of each turn. If a ship rolls under the current turn number, it arrives 30 hexes from any other ship not also arriving that turn from a map edge that the player could retreat to. Floating map.

(SG3.0) Base Defense
As the scenario is written, but adjusted for BPV.

(SGX.2) Root Out
This scenario can take place in any type of terrain that is compatible with hidden deployment (D20.0). The idea is that some number of targets (procedurally chosen from a chart) are scattered around the terrain feature (small ground bases for mining, listening posts, etc). An enemy force of some size is deployed with D20.0 in the terrain feature. I’ll write up a scenario description.
When fighting Jindarians it’ll be an asteroid field every time.

(SG2.0) Fleet Action
As written, but with the force brought into the campaign and another force of equal size.

(SGX.3) Planetary Raid
An attack on a planet. The strength of defences would be based on the attacking fleet, but it would have an amount of civilian ships, orbital infrastructure, and ground bases that would be the real targets. Points would be awarded based upon how much havoc is caused to the planet’s defences, but primarily based on damage to the civilian and support targets. SG85.0 False Economics is probably a good starting place. I’ll write up a scenario description.

(SGX.4) Convoy Raid
Basically an upscaled version of SG4.0 Basic Piracy. The freighters are the primary target. The player is the attacker. I’ll write up a scenario description.

(SGX.5) Escort
Basically an upscaled version of SG4.0 Basic Piracy. The freighters must be protected. The player is the defender. I’ll write up a scenario description.

(SM1.0) The Planet Crusher
As the scenario is written, but adjusted (according to SM1.7) for BPV.

(SM2.0) The Space Amoeba
As the scenario is written, but adjusted (according to SM2.7) for BPV.

(SM3.0) The Moray Eel of Space
As the scenario is written, but adjusted (according to SM3.7) for BPV.

(SM7.0) Space Dragon
As the scenario is written, but with a space dragon fit to the task based on BPV (a single ancient dragon for the standard 300 BPV squadron).

(SM4.0) The Cosmic Cloud
As the scenario is written, but adjusted (according to SM4.7) for BPV.

(SM5.0) The Sunsnake
As the scenario is written, but adjusted for BPV. Rather than the 400 points specified by SM5.452, the squadron will need to gather an amount of points of information adjusted by the same procedure as SM2.7

(SM14.0) The Ice Monster
As the scenario is written, but adjusted (according to SM14.74) for BPV.

(SM15.0) The Metamorph
As the scenario is written, but adjusted for BPV. The base scenario is built around a player fleet of 300 BPV, but for fleets of greater or lower BPV, SM15.457 would have to be adjusted up or adjusted down based on the fleet’s BPV.

(SG10.0) A Visitor From Andromeda
As the scenario is written, but adjusted for BPV. For a fleet of 300 BPV, the Andromedans would delete two of their satellite ships from their forces. For a fleet equal to or under 250 BPV delete all of the satellite ships. For a fleet of 420 BPV or higher the Andromedans would only delete one satellite ship. For a fleet of 500 BPV or higher, the Andromedans would delete none of their satellite ships.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Saturday, July 17, 2021 - 11:51 pm: Edit

I didn't make it clear. 300 BPV is just the default, people can go up or down, but just like the Captain's Game is built around the baseline balance of a CA, but can be scaled up to DNs or down to CLs or CSs or whatever, the Squadron Commander's Game, or Commodore's Game, or whatever this is to be called, could be any BPV desired. 300 is merely 'standard.'

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Saturday, July 17, 2021 - 11:55 pm: Edit

So in that case, could the concept still be saved as a "Squadron Commander's Game" where the player assembles a working squadron (led by a leader ship such as a DDL, FFL, CL, CA, or whatever), and constrained by a BPV limit (say, 300 BPV) and then takes that squadron on a chain of 9 or so missions?

I think it can totally be saved. It sounds like it could be a lot of fun. You can limit by BPV and shrink/grow the opponent based upon the strength of the player squadron, but the mission type remains the same.

To answer one of your earlier questions, I see the main differences between ship types in SFB articulated well in F&E. Bigger ships are slow to build and expensive, and one doesn't want to risk them unnecessarily. Littler ships are cheap to build and plentiful, so they will be seen more often and can undertake more and more risky missions. The main role of the larger ships is to command larger groups in fleet actions, via the F&E command limits. So if you want a fleet of 10 ships you need a CC + 9 other ships.

This explains why one doesn't see squadrons of 3xDNs operating alone.

--Mike

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, July 19, 2021 - 01:55 pm: Edit

I do not see any reason Shawn Gordon cannot proceed with development.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, July 19, 2021 - 11:44 pm: Edit

I just got my print copy of R4T and I must say, adding the first new SFB module in about a decade to the binders is a *very* satisfying Experience.

By Daniel Eastland (Democratus) on Tuesday, July 20, 2021 - 08:28 am: Edit

Since the Captains Game was mentioned, I have a question about it.

What is the best Hydran ship to use in this campaign? A DG/RN with full fighter compliment seems a bit much when facing a Lyran CA or Klingon D7.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, July 21, 2021 - 04:29 pm: Edit

The Tartar (at 125 BPV) is the points equal of the Fed CA, and has no fighters; I think that would make it a fair option.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Wednesday, July 21, 2021 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Not when You add in the Fed CAs refits and drone speeds. The Mongol is closer but a bit higher at base 160 with fighters. However a Ranger with the + refit is 99BPV then add stinger 2s to = the BPV You want.

You can buy the Lord Marshal or Lord Bishop and add St2s to match BPV.

Just my thoughts on things

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Wednesday, July 21, 2021 - 10:54 pm: Edit

A friend of mine wanted to fly a Ranger for The Captain's Game a while ago, so we used 9 Stinger-1s and set it in the middle years.

The fully decked out RN in Y150 is worth 165 BPV, which is quite a large number. To make up for it we simply flew it against multiple ships. The first duel was vs a Klingon D7 and an E3. The second duel was against a Lyran CL and DD. I don't remember the details of the rest, but we made it work.

The Captain's Game is really not designed for a Hydran hybrid carrier cruiser, and it's definitely not what U2.0 was balanced around. It's interesting to play, and monster scenarios require a different approach (MCIDS can deal with fighters very well, but also the fighters do so much damage that you end up in situations where you might have to choose between winning and sacrificing all/most of your fighters leaving you with a half-empty flight deck for the next mission, or bailing on the monster).

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Wednesday, July 21, 2021 - 11:56 pm: Edit

Never liked Tartar, flavor has always been a bit off for me.

By Christopher Nuzzi (Cnuzzi) on Thursday, July 22, 2021 - 02:15 pm: Edit

I have found an error in the Master Ship Chart. The entry for the Neo-Tholian NFH incorrectly lists the size class as 5, when it should be 4. The SSD of the ship (CL25, pg. 64) gives the correct value.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 12, 2021 - 12:57 pm: Edit

It occurred to me, that there is something missing in the mission profiles of Federation small unit operations. Since the Federation does not use Gunboats (A.K.A. PF’s), certain missions would need to be completed by other units, in the absence of Federation PFs.

All of these substitutes fall short of what other empires PF flotillas bring to the game table.

Fighters and bombers are very short duration, there is a Rule in the ‘J’ section (I forget the number, but it’s in the operations section of Admin Shuttle craft.) specifically, it limits mission duration to “several hundred Star Fleet Battles turns.”

Regardless of how long a SFB game turn is defined, the period falls far short of the 96 hour mission duration of PFs.

The Federation might have turned to Security or police operated skiffs (or even Slammers) except that the history is emphatic that such Skiffs NEVER EVER operated in flotilla strength.

Examples of the kind of mission the Federation might have used, could include static patrolling of the Federation Romulan border during the period up to and including the Romulan declaration of war and the invasion of the Federation by the Romulans. In particular, a patrol unit dedicated to supplement border security in the face of Romulan Privateer attacks before the declaration of war.

Now, I am not proposing any specific design, or parameters... just asking if this gap in mission capabilities would warrant a Federation only design of some sort of Rule J or Rule K unit (smaller than a Star ship), but more capable of longer endurance missions than fighters or bombers?

I suppose you could assign the mission to Skiffs, but as the crew of a skiff is materially similar to that of PFs, it would logically fall under the prohibition that prevent PFs being operated by the Federation.

To give you a “Real World” example to compare to, I point to World War 2 United StatesNavy operated patrol bombers (Consolidated built PBY amphibious aircraft.) or later, P-3 or P-8 ASW patrol aircraft.
Historically, PBY missions often lasted 17 hours of flight time, or longer for late war versions. With refueling, P-3 or P-8 Orion aircraft even longer.

Logically, this might (in terms of Star Fleet Battles rules) be satisfied with a specialized 3 space or 4 space shuttle design.

Not a bomber, in the traditional sense, but equipped with a pair of type VI dogfight drones, and 2 larger drones. (Type I, or Type IV.)

Not normally operated in groups, though two such shuttles on adjacent patrol stations might respond to a contact, thus two on the scene when a regular patrol ship responds.

The mission to achieve sensor and scanner lock n, and maintain contact with the target until reinforcements arrive.

Crew of any given unit no less than 2 and no more than 6 individuals. Not intended for fighter or bomber missions, just classic scout or reconnaissance roles.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Thursday, August 12, 2021 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Wouldn't an F-111 be able to fill such a role?

If the flight time is a problem, they have that special weapons bay that could hold some kind of (useless in combat) fuel pod for extended flight time, could they not?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 12, 2021 - 03:09 pm: Edit

Shawn, you could check with Petrick, but my reading of the rule is that it’s not a fuel problem, as much as crew habitability. The duration limit is “several hundred Star Fleet Battles turns.”

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, August 12, 2021 - 03:38 pm: Edit

I remember reading that a B-2 conducted a thirty plus hour bombing mission, IIRC, it was over Afghanistan. Those birds have a crew of two. As a part of how they were able to stay up for so long, the crew were able to alternate sleeping on an engine inlet cover stretched out in the cockpit.

By this reasoning, I think it perhaps not unreasonable for even something as small as a heavy fighter to be able to conduct the sorts of missions you've brought up.

(Mind you, it might get a LITTLE ripe in the cockpit after that length of time...)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, August 12, 2021 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

I am sorry, but PFs do not start showing up until Y176, and with the exception of Roman sunlight fighters and bombers and Hydran fighters, fighters in general do not start showing up until Y160 (Kzinti). Prior to those dates there was clearly a means of controlling the borders that was not 100% effective (Orions and smugglers) and was still not 1005 effective after they were deployed (Orions and smugglers remains in business and Andromedans operated throughout the quadrant, not to mention various monsters, both living and mechanical). Further, Federation & Empire establishes that the reaction range of fighters and PFs is the same, e.g., 1 hex. And again they show up pretty late in the known history of the alpha octant.

Basically police ships and navy ships on patrol covered the area, but also the relatively large number (but not shown only reference peripherally in the background) of civilian shipping and the relatively large numbers of minor colonies not shown on the map provided scanning and report things.

As to your concept of a patrol bomber, consider the costs associated with a Federation SWACs, and look at (D17.3). It is a good way to bankrupt your economy for little to show for your effort.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, August 12, 2021 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Note: Even PFs place the crew in space suits for the mission. It is not a shirt sleeve environment, although it would seem they do not need to seal their helmets if the boat is not in action or has not sustained damage. So while there is more room to get about, habitability is not all that much better than a fighter or bomber.

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Thursday, August 12, 2021 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Auxillary cruisers did the pratrol duties between outpost. See "A call to Arms" in CL#44.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, August 13, 2021 - 08:49 am: Edit

IIRC PFs only turn off the life support when in combat.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 13, 2021 - 02:03 pm: Edit

Mike Grafton:

I believe I said that in essence. You have to wear the space suit because you do not have time to get in it when going into combat (you might be taken by surprise), but you can have the face plate open which can be closed in a moments notice.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, August 13, 2021 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Didn't the color text for the G1N say that those gunboats had to pay 1/5 energy for life support because, "Admirals are not partial to pressure suits?"

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 13, 2021 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Jeff Anderson:

I am not sure I get your point. G1Ns are essentially executive transports. They are not intended to go into combat, but have some weapons for self-defense. Essentially, the "passengers" may have pressure suits they can attempt to get into if the boat is attacked, but the boat is going to avoid action if at all possible.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 13, 2021 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

I do not understand why you are sorry?!?

This is not a proposal for a specific unit, ship or design.

I was pointing out that there is a “gap” in the Federation order of battle for “something” that could match the abilities of PF’s under certain mission profiles.

That mission, in brief, is that of patrol Picket. A scout , sentry or observation unit on alert for infiltration raids on friendly colonies, bases or economic targets (mines, agriculture production facilities, research outposts etc.)

The historic example sited was Romulan Privateers prior to the start of hostilities in the General War.

The fact that PF’s did not show up until year 176 is not relevant. The issue is the mission role, not PF’s Perse.

After year, 176, the mission role is still the same, detect enemy infiltration ships or units in time to raise an alert to endangered bases or colonies.

The year PFs get developed, year 176, is the point where the Federation no longer is competitive in the mission as any empire that operates PFs are qualitatively superior to any and all units the Federation has available.

I understand the point you make about police ships and navy ships “covered the area”... but the point that I tried to address IS “civilian shipping” and “ relatively large numbers of minor colonies not shown on the map provided scanning and report things”.

Almost every empire , except the Federation, in the alpha quadrant, deployed PFs in numbers, that simply do not exist in the Federation. Those PFs represent a quality improvement that fighters or bombers can’t compete against.

Yes,I recognize that both PFs and fighters and bombers have the same reaction range.

The difference, is PF’s can remain on station, patrolling for enemy activity for DAYS of time (96 hours), fighters and bombers loiter time is measured (per published rule) as “several hundred Star Fleet Battles turns.” (It’s in Rule section J, under Admin Shuttles.)

Oh, and I suspect that there is a communication problem about just what sensor or scanner requirements are needed.

I am not proposing a SWACs clone or a shuttle with special sensors.

Just “something” with a longer mission duration than a shuttles built in “several hundred Star Fleet Battles turns” limit.

I have a hard time understanding how it is possible that a normal shuttle or bomber derivative with a extended mission duration (and no special sensors) would be as expensive as an SWACs. If I remember correctly, a SWAC cost as much as a Frgate... a patrol thingy ***In Theory *** should price out at 20 BPV or less. (Probably, a lot less if it is to be available in sufficient quantities to actually complete the mission.)

But that’s where you and our “Game Overworked Designer” come in.

If you tell me there is no room in SFBs for a federation thingy for a on station patrol unit, Then I will accept that.

Just pointing out one area that I feel the fact that the Federation never deployed PFs, is leaving the Federation vulnerable.

Thank you, for hearing me out.

Respectfully,
Jeff Wile.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 13, 2021 - 07:13 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

And I was pointing out that if this "gap" existed, it would have existed BEFORE fighters, bombers, and PF existed, i.e., that ALL EMPIRES would have had such a "gap>' And all empires would have solved it in the same manner in the period before fighters, PFs, and Bombers. That the Federation essentially continued filling the gap with the same methods, and then Other Empires would rely on this methods to filll the gap if they were short the new units means the gap is considered filled.