Archive through April 19, 2022
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: General Tactics Discussion:
Federation Tactics:
Archive through April 19, 2022
Jessica,
True. But taking PFs in a Fed campaign doesn't preclude either Fed escorts or gatling phasers. Even without F-111s you can field F-14 and F-15 carriers and their escorts. You can't field as many total fighters as you could with the Third Way. But without the F&E-based free replacement of fighters (so long as the carrier survives), I don't know that this is such a big deal. Those PFs give you a lot of capability, IMHO.
PFs are easier to fly. Just cruise up to the enemy, take your lumps and let them have it what whatever PFs survive. Your fleet flies in behind them and hits what is left. You can play a longer game by using proximity photons at range 12, but honestly you get a better bang for your buck simply by flying in and using them as "meat shields" to cover for your ships, which then get better board and firing positions.
Fighters can do the same thing, but they're harder to use *and* you have to be good with your drone tactics (primarily not stacking all your drones for a single T-Bomb to take out, but sending in a solid trickle wave of drones he eventually has to deal with). Note that late war fighters can be *scary* when loaded with megapacks.
YMMV.
Jessica,
Yes, most Federation escorts are very good. That isn't my point.
My point is that to get a squadron of 12xF-18s or 6xF-111s to battle, you *must* take three ships. There is no option. In contrast, to get a flotilla of 6xPF, you *must* only take one ship. When building a force, particularly in SFB, that is a massive BPV differential that can help enormously in building your force.
And, if I remember correct, tenders always have the option to use escorts themselves. (I don't have the rule handy. I could be wrong.) In that case, you would have the option to bring those killer escorts along if you wanted to, but you are not forced to, and that flexibility is a huge advantage.
Finally, I will stress one more time: casual PFs. You can add up to six PFs to just about any force without requiring a tender. Got a few extra BPV to spend? Toss in a PF. Wanna swap out a destroyer for three PFs? Sure! Go for it! You absolutely have *none* of those options with fighters. To add a single fighter to a force requires a minimum investment of two ships. (Or the use of an HDW.)
PFs are massively versatile. They are ridiculously overgunned. They are dirt cheap. They can be added incrementally as needed/desired. They are self-sustaining outside racked weapons (drone/Pl-D). They are incredibly flexible. They have awesomely useful specialty versions. They are amazing. I don't see the choice as a difficult decision.
Respectfully, Mike, ships are allowed to exchange an ADMIN or two for fighters. These casual fighters don't have the same supplies aboard their home ship that a dedicated carrier possesses, but they are a welcome addition, particularly for seeking weapon defense.
Additionally, the capability of drone armed remotely operated fighters to serve as variable launch scatter packs is formidable and, while they may not have the same drone launch sustainability of Gunboats (and lack Gunboat direct fire weapons), they are less expensive; half the combat BPV in most cases.
On a personal note, I have a certain "Emotional" fondness for the Federation combo of "Super Fighters" with SWAC support over their use of Gunboats and, as a "Uniquely Federation" element, I have long felt it serves as an enriching element in the game universe.
Just my 0.02 Quatloos worth. 
Many good points here. I agree, PFs are "easier" to fly tactically, your fighter/drone game has to be pretty good to have success with that. Fighters, while complex, also do have the "no energy allocation" bonus, which is easier in a different way.
Economy was mentioned, but incorrectly. There were some comments about fighters being cheaper in F&E and that's not in SFB, but that's not correct. If you're playing an SFB campaign, remember that all shuttles and fighters economic BPV is _half_ their combat BPV. This I feel is a _very important_ distinction.
I know the conventional wisdom is that PFs are "superior" but that hasn't been my personal experience, but also consider that I have flown Fed PFs twice but have learned and refined fighter and drone tactics over probably a high 2-digit number of battles over the past 30 years. Probably in the 3-digits for fighters, but I also fly Hydran often so that's fighters but without the drones obviously. That's _absolutely_ skewed my view!
And I'm back around to repeating my original advice, which was "play what you know." But I really wanted to chime in with the economic factor. In an SFB campaign, you can field dense fighter groups that are "half price" to buy and replace.
I am unaware of any current rule allowing the trade of admin shuttles for fighters on standard warships. Could someone point it out to me, if there is such a rule?
EPV is used for determining victory in some scenarios, but you still have to pay at combat BPV rates to add fighters to your fleet. Essentially it means killing fighters is less important (strategically) than killing ships. Generally.
Slight expansion: You have to pay at combat BPV to add fighters to your fleet _for patrol battles_. The original question refers to a campaign, where battles are generally not patrol battles, but rather whatever forces are available at that time and place in the campaign, and the EBPV is much more relevant in that context.
And also confirming, you can't just swap out an admin shuttle for a fighter. A very small number of ships can do that explicitly in their respective rules, that's all.
Note that if you skip the PFS or replace it with a combat model (which still leaves the remaining PF group superior to fighters in EW), then the PF also have a substantially lower EPV than BPV. Circa 62.5% rather than 50%, which is still pretty good. And if you do pay 100 EPV for that PFS, it's a cheap nearly scout ship which is very likely to survive to fight again.
Richard has the right of it: swapping out Admin shuttles for fighters is limited to ships that specifically reference casual fighters (a fair few Hydran ships do, as do HDWs) in the Captain's Edition; it was permitted on a broader basis in the Commander's Edition (particularly under the old S3.3 ship modification rules).
A few notes:
-----
The Feds over in the Darwin's "dark future" timeline begin deploying Thunderbolt PFs in alt-Y198, as noted in SFB Module C3A.
-----
Back in the "standard" timeline, there are in fact a number of single-ship carriers in Federation service... not least of which being the Darwin herself. (Otherwise she would never have been able to unlock the secret behind the Andromedan Rapid Transit Network in the first place.)
As for single-ship F-111 carriers, there is the GVX Powell, as well as the "-Z" variant of the Federation HDW and HDWX. (That's when you field a "short squadron" of four F-111s instead of six, while using the RA weapon mounts to install a pair of special sensors.)
Indeed, with only one GVX and a mere handful of GSXs to go around, the HWXZ is arguably the next best thing that Star Fleet has to the Move Cost 2/3 X-raiders used by other empires to go after the RTN, such as the Klingon D5PX or the Romulan SparrowHawk-EX.
-----
On a broader note, the choice by the Feds to forego the use of gunboats historically has a significant knock-on effect for the broader Federation economy - not least due to the lack of a "home-built" workboat or survey PF to put on the market.
Well, unless you count the Orion Enclave building Buccaneer-W and Buccaneer-Q boats for "export" to the rest of the Federation...
To get back to Alan's original question, I think the question should not be, "Which is better?" Because that answer is fairly obvious. The real question is, "Do you want to stay 'historical'?"
Jeff,
As pointed out multiple times, no, you can't swap out Admin shuttles for fighters. That is not permitted outside HDWs and some extremely few and limited exceptions that don't apply to Feds. You can use the F-7, but it's not worth the bother.
Gary,
Between skiffs, Buccaneer-Ws, and heavy skiffs, the Feds are fine. They have all of the "civilian" workboat equivalents they want. And, yes, for all intents and purposes, the Buccaneer-Ws are the official Federation workboat.
Jamey and Richard,
When constructing a battle force you always use combat BPV to construct the force*. So, you pay listed price for fighters and pay the larger, combat BPV for gunboats. This lets you determine how "fair" the fight will be. But, for victory conditions, you use the economic BPV. So, when you are blowing up those fighters and gunboats, you are not earning the "full" victory points. (But if you blow up the tug, you get more.)
Also, I am well aware that fighters have an implicit economic BPV that is half their list price. I know this because I was one of the ones that pushed for this back in the day. But my point about F&E still stands. Giving fighters a half-price economic BPV merely makes them the same as PFs. It doesn't make them better; it only allows them to be equivalent. In F&E, the prices for fighters and PFs are already equivalent, but replacement fighters are outright free, whereas replacement PFs cost as much as the original PFs. So, yes, there is a marked economic benefit that fighters get in F&E that isn't represented in SFB (as long as you keep your carriers alive).
[*] Except for scouts (including PF scouts) that are not alone. Scouts that accompany anything else pay the larger economic BPV when constructing the battle force. You still earn the economic BPV for victory conditions.
MW: That's essentially what I said.
Now, I will say that a fighter squadron is generally better than a PF flotilla at drone warfare, which I believe is why Jamey Johnston prefers fighters. Even the drone-heavy versions of PFs generally have 3 drone racks and PF drone racks don't have reloads. So (assuming one of the PFs is the PFS, with only a single drone rack)a flotilla would max out at 16 racks/64 drones. A Z-YCM or TADS-CM squadron would carry 88 anti-ship drones and could launch 22 in a single turn (assuming one of the fighters was the EW fighter with only dogfight drones). An F-18CM squadron could carry as many drones but unless it was using Type-IIIs, would have launch rate issues. But an F-14CM or -DM squadron could carry 110! (that's "WOW, that's a LOT of drones", not "110 factorial") anti-ship drones and launch 22 per turn.
And that's not enen considering remote-controlled fighters.
I think all the other PF advantages are enough to overmatch the fighter squadron superiority in drone warfare. But if you do want to put a huge number of drones into the battle, a late war / ISC era / Andro era Kzinti, Klingon, or Fed fighter squadron still performs that particular task better than anything else in the game.
sigh...
THIRTY years, I've had the Captain's Edition, but STILL think in terms of rules from the older one 
(bangs head on wall in shame)
I will, however, stick to my guns on the other aspect. Federation Carrier Groups, particularly those with the "Super Fighters" (and the "Feds Only" SWAC rules), have (IMO) a "Cool Factor" about them; a special uniqueness that's one of many elements giving the game universe so much richness and color.
Well, from a rules perspective, I have nothing to add to what has already been said above.
From a game play point of view, there are still some points that have not been presented:
1) workload. Not all players are willing to take on the task of gaming a Fed F-14CM or DM squadron with 110 drones (or perhaps I should say’Drone Space Equivalents’!)
2) even if you have a player (or players) who are willing to game a Fed F-14CM or DM squadron, there are players who will reject such a game on the basis of the time to move that mass of counters takes up too much time.
3) and assuming you do have a game group to play out such a scenario, the BPV total of a battle that includes one or two F-14CM or DM squadrons, AND the respective carrier groups, support ships (Troop ships, maulers, drone bombardment ships, scouts and other-ships (frigates, destroyer, cruisers or flagships)) would be epic proportions.
Not for the faint of heart!
I realize we're getting into splitting hair territory, but a quote from the rulebook:
"Remember that when buying forces for a Patrol Scenario, you purchase fighters at the higher combat BPV and the enemy, when he damages or destroys them, scores points at the lower Economic BPV"
The phrase I am calling attention to is "for a Patrol Scenario." Yes, when building a force for a Patrol Scenario, you pay combat BPV. But the original question was asking about a campaign. When building forces for a campaign battle you are limited by your available forces in campaign, and don't have to follow S8.0 or any other BPV related restrictions. You don't even have to properly escort carriers (in most campaigns you are required to build said escorts but again quoting from the rulebook: "If playing in a campaign situation, these Patrol scenario restrictions will provide some guidelines, but available ships may force involuntary violations of some provisions. For example, a carrier must have escorts, but if the escorts were lost in a previous battle, they simply are not available"
So I'm just pointing out that in a campaign, some arguments (like carriers requiring escorts vs. PFTs not) are a _little_ different when you're talking S8.0 legal patrol battles vs. a campaign, because force allocation can be different.
You are right that most PFs (scouts being the major exception) are priced the same way, so the economic differences in a campaign vs. patrol scenarios is about the same.
Ok going to make a stab at this...
To me the strength of the Feds is the photon torpedo. The fact you have to load and reload them with warp power slows down their ships. In fleet battles (squadron size,) Prox photons as well as standard photons can be murder with a little luck plan nasty. Then You have to reload them. Klingons with Disr can close then and OUCH. While reloading Photons with warp slows you down vs plasma.
A large wave of drones however can force the enemy away while you reload.
So, the more drones I can get out in a turn, followed by a second wave on the reload turn. Giving the enemy more targets to shoot then my ships. You can of course use scatter packs from your Ships and need no carrier but with a carrier you can do both. Carriers carry fighters and Photons. Most PF tenders do not carry full heavy weapons.
Cost of escorts can vary, and few have photons.
I would think the fighters would be better then The PFs in that case.
Jeff Wile's points are probably the most relevant in terms of actual time at the table. As someone with tons of drone/carrier battles, they are daunting. Generally several hours of prep time, followed by often 6+ hours at the table playing it out. That's the real cost. Most big battles are daunting, but Fed Carrier forces are some of the "worst." Enormous amounts of free time is the only reason that was ever possible for me
Vandar is right, to an extent.
The main weapon for the Federation has always been the Photon Torpedo.
Call his position, “The Moral High Ground” from the point of view of purists.
Unfortunately, photons are limited in the types of fighters that can actually mount a Photon Torpedo (A-10, A-20, various bombers etc...)
In general discussions, (tactics) a lot of band width has been devoted to Photon Torpedos, but in practical terms, it is rare to have more than two squadrons of Photon Armed fighter shuttles appear in a battle. I suspect, to have more than two such squadrons will require (in some combination) a Major World with more than two Defense Battalions assigned, or a Star base, or a carrier (or a Fed SCS).
And once you start adding Major Worlds with 2+ Def Batts, a Star Base or a CVA/SCS, you have REALLY MOVED WAY BEYOND an epic battle into legendary. (Please excuse the capitalization, meant for emphasis, not shouting. )
The assault on the Romulan Home World where the U.S.S. MacArthur was lost being the classic example.
Do note that everything said about fighters is still available when using PFs. So, your SWAC stuff, your CVS, your fully loaded and maxed out F-14s, all of it is still available when using PFs. The only things lost are F-111s and the Third Way. And nothing said after my last post is referencing either of those.
So, if you use PFs, you still get all of those Stupid Fighter Tricks. And PFs. You even get to eventually use the SCS that gets a full squadron of F-14s and a full squadron of F-18s and a full PF flotilla.
I'm still failing to see the tactical downside.
In my thoughts above I was not thinking of the Photon fighters but of drone ones to push back the enemy ships so the Feds can reload photons.
In a campaign setting how is third way better than PFS?
In a lot of campaigns, the size of fleets is regulated by S8. Some groups use their own fleet size tables. However, If I can send a a carrier battle group using the third way. S8.327
Example: A Federation SCS group (A-20 Squadron, F-14
Squadron, F-18 squadron) in a CVBG with a Federation CVD group
(two squadrons of F-18s).
I think you can field a higher BPV force using the third way then using PFS, and has been said no one wants to play that many fighters drones in a battle.... So you win that important battle,
In a campaign, why couldn't a foe, just send enough ships to block, make the CV Group deploy...
Send the rest of their ships to attack a fixed position....
No reason to deeply engage fighters anymore than possible...
I meant to get back to this discussion earlier...
Jamey Johnston and Gregory Flusche both seem to value the "third way" over PFs because it enables the Feds to generate huge drone waves to deter the enemy from overrunning the Feds during the photon reload turn. (My apologies to both Jamey and Gregory if I am mischaracterizing their opinions.)
But I'm not convinced. First of all (and this will vary somewhat according to campaign-specific rules), the extra squadron the third wave option gives you will probably be F-18s. We know that F-18s made up the overwhelming majority of the Feds' late-war fighters, with only a few F-14 or F-15 squadrons. If the campaign rules are structured to replicate this, how many extra drones does the F-18 squadron add? Assuming it wants to fire "ship killing" drones rather than dogfight drones (and assuming one EW fighter in the squadron), the squadron can only launch 11 drones (plus 13 dogfight drones, which have... some effect on ships, but not much) unless the F-18s carry Type-IIIs, which are expensive and in short supply. If a Fed force is deploying enough fighters to require "third way", will those additional 11 drones make a difference regarding the enemy's ability to bull through the drone wave? Maybe... sometimes. But I suspect that in most cases, if the enemy has enough anti-drone capability to fight through a drone wave put out by, for example, a DVA (F-14 squadron plus A-20 squadron) combined with a CVB (F-15 squadron), the few extra drones from Gregory's proposed SCS in CVBG with a CVD won't change his mind. He will simply need to devote a higher percentage of his assets to anti-drone work. Yeah, occassionally the few extra drones might force him to turn off rather than fight his way through, but I think that would be pretty rare. And my proposed force is cheaper and has more photon torpedoes. And I can use it under a rule set that allows Fed PFs (though I went all-fighter in this particular battle).
There's also the question regarding how strongly the campaign rules enforce the requirement for carriers to have escorts. (Jamey alluded to this in his 9:20 PM post on 15 April.) And although some Fed escorts do carry photons, they don't carry as many as standard warships based on the same hull. So a carrier-heavy force (heavy enough to require the third way rule), including their (presumed) escorts, will have significantly less photon firepower than would a force replacing some of the carriers with PF tenders and replacing the escorts with standard warships. And it would still allow the Feds the option of deploying a massive drone force (such as the above-proposed DVA+CVB battle group) if that were felt to be more advantageous to the specific tactical situation.
That, at any rate, is how I see it. YMM, as they say, V.
Don't forget about booster packs. In Y180 boosters become general availability (IIRC), and this qualifies as "late war". Even F-18's with boosters become scary, because they can be turned on and even regular old F-18s suddenly increase speed to 25 or 26 (I say 25 because they might want to use erratic maneuvering to help offset the double damage they may incur).
In a sense, the fighter *itself* becomes a high speed seeking weapon. It can pursue relentlessly and do some rather alarming damage at close range. 12*F-18 is and other 24 ph-3, which can produce somewhere between 80-90 damage at range 1.
PLUS, don't discount that those extra drones are now also speed 32! Worse, the drones may not be launched until the fighters are closer (because they can keep up the speed), and that in turn makes it harder to shoot them down. That also puts a lot more pressure on the enemy fleet.
The photons on the Fed PF are also limited to range 15. Which means they're going to get closer - their "sabre dancing" range is range 12, and that's cutting it close to the all-important range 8 where phasers and overloads come into play. Then again, as I argued above, that's just where I think the PFs should go (arm overloads and cruise in where the enemy must kill them (and be vulnerable to the Fed fleet behind them) or suffer a lot of damage).
Don't get me wrong. PFs have enormous advantages, and I certainly think that 6*PF is better than 12*F-18C (even with boosters and fast drones). However, the Third Way is not to be scoffed-at.
The real benefit to the Third Way is strategic, and not really reflected in SFB. It *is* a major benefit in Federation and Empire, and could be made a benefit in a homebrew campaign.
In F&E, the big benefit (as others have indicated) is that your dead fighters are replaced *for free*. PFs, on the other hand, are costly to replace. In F&E, PFs add more combat potential (12 vice 6), but cost 2 economic points apiece (and a CA will cost you 8 EPs, for perspective).
So, in F&E it's also a trade-off. However, free damage absorption is a big deal from a strategic perspective.
As Alan and many others have commented already, YMMV. I'm just pointing out a few other considerations.