| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 - 02:17 pm: Edit |
Ted, PF photons are even shorter ranged than you think, range-12, not 15.
And I'm not forgetting about fast drones and warp boost packs. I was, in fact, assuming them in my previous post.
But I don't think they can get to range 1, or even 2. If the boost packs are turned off, the F-18s are too slow. If they are turned on, they are too fragile. They might get that close with megapacks, but that quickly becomes very expensive, even if the campaign rules allow you the (non-historical) option of making as many of your fighters as you choose megapack-equipped.
Quote:12*F-18 is and other 24 ph-3, which can produce somewhere between 80-90 damage at range 1.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 - 02:55 pm: Edit |
@Alan: All true! Thanks for the correction on PF photon range.
As I indicated, I agree PFs are better in SFB.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 - 02:58 pm: Edit |
Uhh...
Oops... I meant to sat SFB economics is not the same as F&E economics.
Quote:SFB economics is not the same as SFB economics.
| By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 - 03:08 pm: Edit |
As Ted Fay put it, "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."
There is another factor that tips the scales a bit in the Fighter direction. Replacement PFs have to be sent to the front and their tenders / bases like ground bases, which need a tug or carrier / tender to do so. Fighters just "appear" at their carriers and HBMs.
Simpler logistics are also nothing to scoff at.
| By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 - 03:09 pm: Edit |
Alan says, "But in SFB, the enemy can shoot at whatever he chooses. He may completely ignore the fighters and fire everything at ships if he thinks that is best."
That happens in F&E too -- it's called Directed Damage.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 - 03:52 pm: Edit |
Mike,
But again, this whole discussion is about an SFB campaign, not F&E. And the campaign rules for replacing fighters and PFs may be modelled on F&E or may be completely different. For example, I've played in campaigns in which everything (including fighter replacements) is purchased at EPV. It's a matter of personal preference more than anything else.
But... why? Why do replacement fighters just magically show up at their carriers but PFs have to be carried there by limited transport assets? If anything it should be the other way around. PFs have longer endurance and longer range than fighters, though they may have to stop at some intermediate base to refuel and to flush the ionic charges from their engines. But those intermediate bases could be much further apart than they would need to be for fighters. Or if freighters (not represented by counters in F&E) are carrying those fighters, why can't they carry PFs? I'm not sure a rule like this is particularly useful for an SFB campaign.
Quote:There is another factor that tips the scales a bit in the Fighter direction. Replacement PFs have to be sent to the front and their tenders / bases like ground bases, which need a tug or carrier / tender to do so. Fighters just "appear" at their carriers and HBMs.
Simpler logistics are also nothing to scoff at.
Yeah, I mentioned directed damage in the comment. But I believe that in F&E, you can generally only direct on one target per round. In SFB, you can concentrate all your firepower on one important target or spread it among multiple targets of your choice.
Quote:That happens in F&E too -- it's called Directed Damage.
| By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 - 03:56 pm: Edit |
ack in the day, I ran SFB campaigns, generally there was some game mechanic that made fighters strategically useful to give up rather than ships.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 - 04:07 pm: Edit |
I'm certainly not saying fighters are useless. What I am saying is that PFs are enough better that the Feds are better off with PFs than they are with F-111 plus third way. (And they can still build any fighters except the F-111.) It just gives them more options. If a given situation seems to call for MASSIVE drone waves, send three squadrons of fighters (including the CVD (oversized squadron) and/or at least one squadron of F-14s or F-15s). They don't lose that capability. They just lose one (probably F-18) squadron from the third way. In exchange, they gain PFs, with all that implies.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 - 04:14 pm: Edit |
Maybe I'm just prejudiced against F-18s. F-14s and F-15s are very good but F-18s are clearly inferior to Klingon Z-Ys or Kzinti TADSs, assuming comparable refits for each. The Feds are supposedly this great fighter-using empire but their most common late war fighter is clearly inferior to its Klingon and Kzinti counterparts. And the latter two empires also have PFs,
| By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 - 04:32 pm: Edit |
In SFB campaigns and scenarios where strategic factors do not come into play, PFs are superior.
In F&E, the Fed 3rd Way and their advanced heavy fighters are superior.
| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 - 09:21 pm: Edit |
Perhaps one issue is that, at the time of writing, there are certain types of fast patrol ship tender which the Feds would have deployed in the "standard" timeline - or which they would deploy over in the "dark future" timeline - that do not exist in print.
For example, there would likely be a PF tender variant of the Federation NCA, akin to the Klingon D5WP or the Romulan FireHawk-E.
So far as X-ships go: as noted in my last post, the Feds can deploy the HDWX as a PF tender. But the lack of a "true" X-light cruiser might make things awkward otherwise.
Unless a would-be "NAXP", akin to the Romulan FireHawk-EX Admiral Centius from SFB Module X1R, was worth the added expense?
-----
To double back to the topic of "casual" PFs, it's worth noting that according to (R1.PF200N1), an X-ship is permitted to take a PF leader as a "casual" PF.
So, for example, a Federation GSX could take both a PFL and a PFQ for "peacetime" survey missions, or perhaps a PFL and a regular PF for anti-RTN operations.
Of course, there is no doubt a limit in terms of how many PFLs a given empire could build in the course of a given campaign. So even the Feds, were they allowed to field PFs, would have to be careful in terms of which "casual" PFs they deploy to which X-ships.
| By A David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 - 09:36 pm: Edit |
One SFB tactic being missed here is to remote control those F-18s and use them as scatter packs at key moments.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 - 10:35 pm: Edit |
Adm,
That's a fair point but I'm not sure it bears on the central point of contention, which is whether "third way" plus F-111s is better or worse than Fed PFs plus "normal" fighter deployment rules. Surely if the goal is to force the enemy to turn away during the photon reload turn, you could do that with just three squadrons under remote control, launchng all their drones. Three standard F-18C squadrons - no oversized squadrons or "elite" fighters" or megafighters - could carry 198 Type-Is and could launch them all in a single turn. The limiting factor for how many drones could be in flight at any one time would be drone control channels. So how does "third way" really help here?
Also, the fighters are now out of drones and will have to return to ships to reload.
| By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Wednesday, April 20, 2022 - 04:30 am: Edit |
Mostly directed at Alan, but just as a general reminder, unless I have _completely_ missed something huge, I don't know how you got 198 drones on the board in a turn in your example. Most fighters can launch _one_ non-dogfight drone per turn. F-14s can launch two, F-111s can launch four.
In my mind, the drone fire rate is paramount as something that sets the fighters apart. A non-third-way Federation force including one squadron F-14s but let's say without an OS squadron, with all fighters out on the field, could launch 48 drones from fighters, but with third way and adding a single F-111 squadron, that increases to 72. It's a pretty noticeable increase.
I would also point out that in campaigns I've played, the third way limit almost never came into play. That's a _lot_ of material on the field and a rough battle to play out. So I kinda suspect that this decision _truly_ just comes down to F-111s vs PFs, and also consider that in a campaign with economy, you can afford two or three squadrons of F-111s, or one F-111 squadron and another warship, for the price of a PF squadron.
| By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Wednesday, April 20, 2022 - 05:45 am: Edit |
Alan's talking about remote-control fighters, which under (J15.341) can launch any or all of their seeking weapons all in a single impulse, and ignore the launch rate limits of their fighter type.
| By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, April 20, 2022 - 12:09 pm: Edit |
For the F-18C, it has four standard rails and two special rails. Skipping special drones and such, that means it can carry six type-I drones. Three full squadrons is 36 fighters. So, that gives a total of 216 drones launched in a single impulse. There may be up to 36 separate targets for those drones.
So, I'm not sure where the 198 came from either. It's too low.
| By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Wednesday, April 20, 2022 - 12:23 pm: Edit |
3 EW fighters, 198 is consistent with the 33 non-EW fighters each launching 6 drones and the EW fighter launching none.
Away from books, does the F-18 based EW fighter have rails?
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 20, 2022 - 12:28 pm: Edit |
Which can all be blown up, theoretically, by a single well-placed T-bomb.
Quote:So, that gives a total of 216 drones launched in a single impulse.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, April 20, 2022 - 01:05 pm: Edit |
F-18E carries two Type-VI "dogfight drones". I was assuming they wouldn't be launched, though they could be (if the Feds had adequate control panels). This would make a total of 204 drones in the wave, but six woul only be dogfight drones.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, April 20, 2022 - 01:15 pm: Edit |
Quote:(if the Feds had adequate control panels)
| By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, April 20, 2022 - 02:03 pm: Edit |
As a note, the default campaign rules in SFB allow for a certain number of free replacement fighters (U1.23) *and* free replacement gunboats (U1.27). That said, those rules were built in anticipation of a "series of scenarios" campaign, and presume that battle forces stop at a supply/repair point between scenarios.
| By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, April 20, 2022 - 02:18 pm: Edit |
So, about the F-18....
It enters service in Y173, and at that time it measures up well against the competition (Klingon Z-V). It's a point faster and sports a pair of light rails the Z-V lacks, though it has two fewer damage boxes.
The Z-Y hits in Y177; at that time, the F-18B is also entering service. The Hornet-B falls short of the Z-Y only slightly, with a couple less damage points and a one-point lower DFR.
The Z-Y remains very slightly better than the F-18, year for year, through their various upgrades. That said, the Federation was first out of the gate with the F-18, and enjoyed true superiority over the Klingon's best fighter for four long years (Y173-Y176). And of course, there's also the F-14 and F-15, which absolutely wipe the map with anything the Klingons ever launch from a shuttle bay.
| By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, April 20, 2022 - 04:01 pm: Edit |
F-14s and F-15s don't wipe the map of Klingon heavy mega fighters, which do launch from shuttle bays. :p
| By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, April 20, 2022 - 04:27 pm: Edit |
Two hundred drones.
That's more droning than Ben Stein.
(Ducking the thrown frying pan)
There is one concern that comes to my (alleged) mind...
How many control channels for those drones does the Federation have?
| By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, April 20, 2022 - 04:59 pm: Edit |
Richard: pair of F14 mega fighters vs a Z-H or Z-K mega fighter? The Klink is going down.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |