Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through August 26, 2022	25		08/26 06:52pm
	Archive through August 28, 2022	25		08/28 03:53pm
	Archive through September 04, 2022	25		09/04 09:42pm
	Archive through September 08, 2022	25		12/06 07:02pm

Please remember that a squadron of a dozen fighters, each armed with two Phaser-3s will, if there's no die roll shift (and fighters having two ECCM points and two EW Swing points can help with this), do 72 points of damage at Range 2 (assuming normal die rolls).

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, September 28, 2022 - 09:01 am: Edit

Someone mentioned MRS above. Honestly, I usually ignore them, so I hadn't really thought about them. But, in this case, they are trivial to figure out. Basically, since this Federation is all phaser-focused, so is their MRS. This Federation's MRS looks identical to the one used by the Lyrans and the one originally used by plasmoids. It has 2xPh-3 and 1xPh-2.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, December 06, 2022 - 11:00 am: Edit

Thought about this some more and refined parts of the proposal more.

-------------------------------------

Formalized the process for removing drones. The base idea is this:
- Any ship just armed with drones is eliminated. Any ship using plasma is eliminated.
- Any drones that replaced photons are in turn replaced by those original photons (e.g. DDG).
- The first two drones are replaced by Ph-1-RH one-for-one.
- The second two drones are replaced by AWR (or APR).
- The third pair of drones are replaced by Ph-1 with arcs appropriate for the hull. Could still be RH, could be LS/RS, could be 360. Evaluated ship-by-ship.
- The fourth pair of drones are placed by AWR (or APR) again.
Obviously, the vast majority of ships only have one or two drones and don't get past the first phaser replacement step.

Exceptions:
- BB and variants use groups of three, not two.
- Escorts replace drones with ADDs one-for-one. Variant mix could change to add in more photons (e.g. NAC, FBE) and/or phasers (e.g. NER) as appropriate.
- Phasers replacing "carrier refit" drones (e.g. CVS) or equivalent (e.g. BCP) use L+RA and RA+R arcs.
- Some minor exceptions (e.g. MS) will occur.

-------------------------------------

I believe this Federation needs to use gunboats. I don't see an F-111 analog be worthwhile as it would need to be far out of bounds of a typical heavy fighter, as it would need to carry multiple photon charges. In effect, to be worthwhile, a F-111 assault fighter would basically be a mini-PF. Let's just make it a real PF and prevent all the weirdness. The Federation would hate it, but they would learn to live with the guilt.

Converting the gunboats is a bit harder, though. What I settled on is this:
- All non-combat variants and the workboat are unchanged.
- Standard phasers (Ph-1 LS, Ph-1 RS, Ph-3 RX) are unchanged. (This is needed so the first item can be true.)
- Standard version is 1xPh-3 FH and 2xPhot-FA. Gains an extra AWR. Has leader version.
- Phaser version is 1xPh-3 FH and 2xPh-1-FH. Gains an extra APR. Has leader version.
- Escort version is 1xPh-3 FH and 2xADD-12. Gets the extra APR.
- Scout is 1xPh-3 FH and 2xSensors. Gains an extra APR.
Leader versions have only two AWR/APR. They do not get an extra AWR/APR over the one the base version gains.

This basically means one of the drones was converted to a Ph-3 and AWR/APR (the other to a photon). This is a bit of a fudge, but isn't out of line. It puts it directly in line with the Lyran and Tholian PFs, without necessarily being better than either. There could be a theoretical version that has a third Ph-1 and one photon, but the SSD doesn't work so I don't include it.

For PFTs, pretty much any ship with heavy fighters on mech links (whether A-20 or F-111) become gunboat mech links. If they have cargo, that is changed to repair. While there are some of these PFT conversions that exist (e.g. SCS-A and NPF), many do not. They would need to be made.

By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Tuesday, December 06, 2022 - 05:53 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I don't see an F-111 analog be worthwhile as it would need to be far out of bounds of a typical heavy fighter, as it would need to carry multiple photon charges. In effect, to be worthwhile, a F-111 assault fighter would basically be a mini-PF.

---

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, December 06, 2022 - 07:02 pm: Edit

Again, this is intended to be an alternative timeline. As such, the designs need to "stay in the lines". No heavy gunboats or impossible ships here.

And I already designed an F-111 analog that does stay "inside the lines". I just don't like it.

But, the real problem is the carriers. That F-111 analog carries two photons each with two charges. Add a mega pack, and that's another charge. Carriers are going to have a very difficult time charging photon freezers when only half the squadron carries a single photon charge. Quadruple that power requirement and most of those fighters are never getting reloaded. I'm not making carriers that are half AWR. The best way to solve the problem is to make sure the attrition units can charge their own photons. That means gunboats. So, gunboats it is.

Sure the the Federation leadership will feel bad about all those lost crews, but it has never stopped governments before. They'll learn to deal with it. All leaders do.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Tuesday, December 06, 2022 - 07:21 pm: Edit

Mike, your starting to sound like I did when I suggested the Feds would be late to the fighter game and possibly go down the PF route. I'll admit I've never seen the rules on gunboats, but they sound like they fit the bill.

As for a carrier that is half AWR... heh, if the Gorn build their battle fleets faced in the direction of the enemy, the Federation will charge the photon freezers on shore power before leaving spacedock.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Tuesday, December 06, 2022 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Abd that is just the first loading, which goes on the fighters before their first sortie ...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, December 07, 2022 - 08:09 am: Edit

Nah. Rule (J4.886) says that freezer boxes are always loaded unless the carrier is under Surprise or Silent Running. That means that even at Weapon Status 0 the freezers are already loaded, though the fighters are not.

So you always get your first load for free. It's that second shot that's the trick.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, December 10, 2022 - 06:02 pm: Edit

Regarding gunboats, I think I figured something out for them.

The problem with getting rid of the drones on the gunboats is that you can't just replace the drones with phasers. There are two problems with this: first, is the drones are "up front", which means you are significantly increasing their attack firepower, not defensive fire power; second, this is adding a lot of phasers to a small platform; the phaser variant would be nightmarish.

The other constraint is that I don't want the non-combat variants and workboat to change. They shouldn't need to. But imposing that restriction means that I am stuck with the default arrangement of Ph-1 LS, Ph-1 RS, and Ph-3 RX. I can't just swap that Ph-3 out for one of the drone's Ph-1s.

The solution I came up with this is that I fudge things around a bit. What I do is replace the forward weapon (in the saucer) with a Ph-3 FH. But, I then add an additional AWR/APR. This fits in nicely by shifting the battery and existing AWR/APR out by half a box, and sliding the new one in adjacent to the existing AWR/APR.

This leaves the two weapons boxes in the rear hull for interesting stuff. The options are these:
- Base version: 2xPhoton FA
- Phaser version: 2xPh-1 FH
- Escort version: 2xADD-12
- Scout version: 2xSensors

There are leader versions of the base combat and phaser versions. The escort version does not have a leader. Also, the escort version gets ADD-12s because it has only two. Note that the leader version does NOT get a third AWR/APR. It keeps only the two it started with.

This also still works with the base non-combat variants. They remain unchanged from the originals because their mission equipment takes up the space of the extra AWR/APR. (And the mine and fi-con don't even have any AWR/APR.)

So, to recap, the base combat version looks like this:
1xPh-3 FH, 1xPh-3 RX, 1xPh-1 LS, 1xPh-1 RS, 2xPhot FA. It has 2 AWR, 1 BATT, and the rest of the original systems.
This puts it directly in line with the Lyran and Tholian gunboats. Yeah, the Lyran only has Ph-2s, not Ph-1s, and the Tholian non-combat variants are awful. But then these Feds don't get the second battery, and still only have two hull. It's not exactly the same (which we wouldn't want anyway), but it is definitely in line with them.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, October 06, 2023 - 11:49 am: Edit

Earlier we had talked about the Carnivon fighters. What I decided to do is make a set of Federation fighters modeled on those Carnivon fighters, but still modeling Federation aesthetics. While the fighter lines don't line up particularly well (primarily because the Federation fighter catalog has had so much more time to build up inventory), I worked to merge them as best as I could.

The major divergence between the historical Feds and this set of fighters is the lack of F-14/A-10. There is a super-fighter here, but it is introduced late, rather than early. Below are quick descriptions of the fighters included in the order of their introduction. I use the designations of FS for superiority fighters and FA for assault fighters. The number parts are just what I thought of while going through them. I note the Carnivon fighters they are drawn from and the Federation equivalents.

• FS-0 (JK-1): The initial Federation fighter. Its performance is similar to the F-8, Z-2, and AAS, but with a small ADD rack instead of drones.
• FS-1/FA-1 (JK-2,HY-1): Instead of making super-fighters (F-14/A-10), the Feds just make an incremental improvement. These are the fighters that initially deploy on the CVA, though they are lacking and are quickly replaced with the FS-2/FA-2.
• FS-2/FA-2 (JK-3/HY-2): The first effective Federation fighters. Their performance is similar to the F-18. Note that it takes significantly less damage than the JK-3 and HY-2.
• FS-6: This super-cheap superiority fighter was developed so that the Federation could pump out more fighters. While never used for first, or even second, tier work, they were sold (and sometimes given away) to clients on a budget. There is no Carnivon equivalent. There is no assault version. Its performance is similar to the F-20 and fills its role.
• FS-3/FA-3 (JK-4/HY-3): The full evolution of the Federation mainline fighter. It is faster, has a larger ADD rack, and gives the photon a second charge. Its performance is similar to the F-18B.
• FS-9/FA-9 (JK-4/HY-3): This is the Federation super-fighter. It uses a completely new frame that is bigger and stronger than the FS-3/FA-3. These have a performance similar to the F-14/15, including the use of a gatling phaser. While produced as a final step, rather than early like the F-14, these fill the Federation super-fighter role with the same type of deployment. Despite being a noticeable step up from the FS-3/FA-3, these are still based on the JK-4/HY-3.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, October 06, 2023 - 01:28 pm: Edit

I don't like giving the photon torpedoes two charges (except for mega-fighters). But it sounds like you're proposing that the base versions have two photon charges. So does that mean the FA-9M would have three charges for the photon torpedo... AND a gatling-phaser? I think that's a bad idea.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, October 06, 2023 - 02:57 pm: Edit

There are two ways to approach these fighters. Start with Federation fighters or start with Carnivon fighters.

My original approach was to take the platforms of the Federation fighters and swap technology to ADDs and Photons. As a result, those fighters are more conservative than these fighters, meaning no multiple charges for photons anywhere outside heavy megafighters.

These fighters start with Carnivon fighters, then are modified to make them look more "Federation". Carnivon fighters use disruptor cannons which operate basically the same as photons. Carnivon single-space fighters have two disruptor cannon charges. They just do. So, if a single-space fighter can handle two disruptor cannon charges, they can handle two photon charges. The two weapons are equivalent.

The Carnivon HY-2 fighter introduces two disruptor cannon charges in Y173. This is continued on the HY-3 fighter introduced in Y176. And, yes, the HY-3M does indeed have three disruptor charges. Given that the HY-2 fighter has two disruptor cannon charges, I really fail to see why two photon charges in Y177 is an issue. And make note: I fully delay the introduction of two photon charges from the FA-2 (equivalent to the HY-2) to the FA-3 (equivalent to the HY-3). The two photon charges are introduced a full fighter development cycle later. So, these fighters are being way more conservative than the Carnivon fighters.

Remember, the Carnivon fighters are published and are considered acceptable. In Y173 they have a disruptor cannon (not a standard disruptor) with two charges on a fighter that takes 14 damage points that has a speed of 12. In Y176 the replacement fighter gets those two charges and 14 damage points, but also speed 15 and a pair of RALAD rounds. In Y176. In print. How can that be OK, but the fighters above are beyond the pale and out of line?

Seriously, I wouldn't argue with you if it wasn't for the Carnivon fighters. But they open the door. Very widely.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, October 06, 2023 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Mike,

My answer would be that, whether published or not, some of the Carnivon fighters are a bit excessive. But you're talking about conjectural units belonging to an empire that is peripheral to the SFU. So they create less of a problem than would be the case for excessive Federation (or Klingon) fighters.

Plus, do any Carnivons have gatling-phasers?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, October 06, 2023 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Nope. No gatling phasers for the Carnivons.

On the other hand, these fighters don't have 14 damage points, either, and the number of gatling phaser fighters you'd see in the Star Fleet is vanishingly small. The primary fighters to look at are the FS-3 and FA-3. Those are the backbone of Star Fleet fighter usage.

But realize that the gatlings are far more restricted here. The F-14 is introduced in Y171, the F-15 a year later, and the F-16 the year after that. In this setup, the FS/FA-4 don't appear until Y180. (And there is no gatling armed FS-7 or whatever.) So, the Federation doesn't start with its best fighters; they end with their best fighters. If you can't handle the FA-4M in Y180, then that's on you. There is plenty of nasty stuff at that point where they just aren't that far out of line.

Also, why are the two charges so bad? They can't use them on the same turn. They can't combine them for longer range. They can't combine them for overloads. They are simply always 8 point standard loads. (OK, you could technically use proxes, but you won't.) You just get two shots over two turns. They still have to get to 12 hexes for a chance to hit and with any EW flying around, they'll have to get a lot closer.

In addition, while I forgot to mention it, the deployment restriction of 50/50 still applies here. And groups of less than six have to be all superiority. Carnivons can use any deployment pattern, from 100/0 to 50/50 to 0/100. The Feds are a little more organized and only do 50/50 or all superiority.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, October 07, 2023 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Mike, in which product are the Paravian fighters published? I know I've seen them before, but I can't find them now.

I do recall thinking the best of them were a little over the top, but I'd like to review them.

Having 14 damage points is nice. Among other things, it means you can take a Type-VI drone and not be crippled, or take a standard Type-I and, while crippled, survive the hit. But I don't think those hit points are enough to make up for a gatling-phaser.

But it's also true, as you say, that the Feds only have a few fighters with those weapons.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, October 07, 2023 - 05:04 pm: Edit

General War era Carnivons and Paravians are in Module C6 Lost Empires.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, October 08, 2023 - 12:36 pm: Edit

I'd love to see some Carnivons in the X era messing with the Andros. Maybe the "Far Stars" Lyrans...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, October 08, 2023 - 12:56 pm: Edit

... that probably deserves its own discussion topic.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, October 09, 2023 - 12:27 pm: Edit

A few thoughts:

-----

I would suggest offering "FS-8" and "FA-8" alternatives to the proposed FS-9 and FA-9, which retained the pair of phaser-3s.

-----

In principle, it is true that the Carnivons are permitted to adjust the ratio of Jackals to Hyenas at their discretion under (R19.F01). In practice, however, it's noted that, "historically"-speaking, the Carnivons typically only deployed all-Hyena squadrons from planetary defences, and/or from starbases.

Given the power limitations aboard most Carnivon carriers (and carrier pods), it is difficult for the Carnivons to effectively use anything more than the "default" 2:1 ratio seen on most carrier SSDs in Module C6. At least prior to the Andromedan War; against the Andros, in cases where there aren't enough Dingo heavy fighters to go around, a carrier might find itself loading up on Hyenas - but even then, maybe not, if the carrier in question is being tasked with keeping tabs on local Orion activities, as noted under (R19.15).

As for the Federation in this setup, I would suggest going with a "default" 2:1 ratio also - except perhaps for dedicated hangar pods for use on larger Federation bases, or indeed for a new variant of Andromedan War-era Fed planetary control bases.

-----

Now, if the Feds in this timeline are not to use PFs, and if they are assumed not to deploy the F-101, F-111, or A-20 either, that might presumably make Fed equivalents of the various Dingo heavy fighters a more viable option.

Indeed, whereas the Carnivons are limited by the inability to deploy both heavy fighters and PFs from the same hull, the Feds in this instance could make a more thorough switch to size-2 fighters - not least during the Andromedan War, when the "interceptor" heavy fighters would likely be as de-emphasized by them as they "historically" were by the Carnivons.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, October 09, 2023 - 05:08 pm: Edit

I was not changing the base setup: These Feds continue to:
- Use PFs. (They are right above the newest fighter idea.)
- Use heavy fighters.
- Not use F-111, Third Way, or SWACs.
- Obey all restrictions on deployment of heavy fighters.

I didn't bother to show the heavy fighters as they are kind of a footnote and not that important. But, they are directly based off the Dingos. Here ya go since you insisted:

Name	Speed	Phaser	Weapon	Damage	Year
HS-1	12	2xPh-2-FA,2xPh-3-FX,2xPh-3-RX	2xADD-6	16	176
HS-2	15	2xPh-2-FA,2xPh-3-FX,2xPh-3-RX	2xADD-6	16	179
HA-1	12	2xPh-2-FX,1xPh-3-RX	1xADD-6,2xPhot-2-FA	18	177
HA-2	15	2xPh-2-FX,1xPh-3-RX	1xADD-6,2xPhot-2-FA	18	179

As you can see they are just duplicates of the Dingos, except they use photons (where appropriate, Fed phasers arcs, Fed damage points, and Fed YIS. No RALAD weirdness or other funny games. These are direct Dingo conversions. These heavy fighters suffer from all of the normal deployment restrictions everyone else has to live with for heavy fighters. As such, in the larger scheme of things, they just aren't that important.

As for deployment, since the Carnivons can do whatever they want (despite typically not doing so), I see no problem with maintaining the 50/50 split I have always done in these proposals. I don't think it is out of line and since the ADD fighters flat out suck (particularly for half of the Federation front line), I would expect them to deploy photon fighters pretty aggressively to make up for that. And with later fighters getting a second charge, that means they can stay out longer when needed.

Quite frankly, it likely means that those later Federation fighters would likely get two photon shots each and then never be reloaded again in that battle, except in very, very unusual circumstances. And ... that's OK.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, October 10, 2023 - 09:49 am: Edit

I missed your first point, then my internet went out. So, while late, here is my response on the FS/FA-8 idea:

I thought of making alternatives to the FS/FA-9 without a Ph-G and decided not to. For three primary reasons:
1) The only Federation superiority fighters with 12 damage points were their super-fighters. They use Ph-Gs. So, that's what I did here. (Do note that, just like there are 2xPh-3 versions of the F-14, F-15, and F-16; there would likely be some for the FS/FA-9. But, just like those are ignored 99.99% of the time, I ignored them here, too.)
2) The FS/FA-9 are off the Carnivon schedule and extra. I saw no reason to have two nearly identical "extras"; the modified FS/FA-9 don't actually accomplish anything. So, I didn't make them.
3) There is no F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-111. There is only the FS/FA-9. And the FS/FA-9 aren't made until Y180. So, I don't think fighter Ph-G deployment restrictions are going to be much of a problem.

Actually, what might be needed is a Ph-G version of the FS/FA-3 that was produced in limited numbers. But that would require a whole bunch of special rules to limit their numbers and probably make some silly "it sometimes fails" special rule and I just thought it wasn't worth the effort.

Again, this schedule means the Federation doesn't get workable Ph-G fighters until Y180 instead of Y171. While there presumably are prototypes all over the place after they got the tech from the Hydrans, in this timeline they didn't finally figure it out until Y180. This is such a huge win for everyone else, I am not seeing what the issue here is.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, December 19, 2023 - 08:11 am: Edit

Just a random update: I looked at those heavy fighters some more. I changed my mind on a couple things:

1) The HA-2 above is pretty nice. Once it is introduced, I figure just about everything that carries 6xFS-3/6xFA-3 would be converted to just carry HA-2. It makes for an effective upgrade on the squadron.

2) If not using the Carnivon path above, but simply starting from the base Federation fighters (which overall ends up being weaker than what is suggested by starting from the Carnivon fighters), the A-20 analog would be identical to the HA-1/2. The fighters are very comparable, and the change effectively exchanges four special rails for two photon charges and an extra Ph-2. Not unreasonable, actually. Since the Dingo is already published, I would use the same heavy fighters either way.

(The F-101 analog would be the same as the HS-1/2 either way, too, but I figure no one cares about it. It is trading four heavy rails, two special rails, two light rails, and a two-space bay for a second ADD and three extra phasers.)