No, escorts cannot reload photon fighters. Thems the rules.

I did not include any kind of alternative fighter photon because of the "no new rules" base assumption. Light photons would be new rules, so I don't apply them here. Do note that in my CDS proposal, I do have a half-photon for just this very reason. It does lighten the load somewhat for the carriers. But, with no new rules, this sticks to the existing fighter photon. (And, no, Omega rules don't count. If a rule only exists in Omega, it counts as a new rule in this context.) Do note that even in the CDS proposal, escorts still can't reload assault fighters.

The other reason I am avoiding the light photon like the plague is because if you use it, then you start using it on ships, and I have no desire to use light (or heavy) photons in the Federation fleet. These Feds use photons. From fighters to battle ships, they simply use photons. This specifically is the reason for how the half-photons work in the CDS proposal. Their technobabble description means they are useful for fighters and only for fighters. They can't work on ships or even on gunboats. That was a very deliberate design decision. But that isn't possible for light photons, so I avoid their use here.

I also allow for the idea that an A-8/A-1 cannot use a photon. If so, it'll have to rely on a Ph-2. The A-18/A-2 would use a photon, but, as noted above, could lose other features to make room for it. Again, the fine details have to be worked through. This is just to make the base outline.

As for the power requirements on the carriers, yes, it is a problem. But, it is the same problem that carriers with disruptor fighters (yes, they take half the power, but there twice as many charges to make) and Pl-F fighters have to deal with, too. If they can manage it, so can carriers of photon fighters. I mean if there was some long range weapon that takes no power to use available, they could use it instead. But that ideal weapon doesn't exist here, so they use the technology they have.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, September 04, 2022 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Mike, you may have to get Petrick to sign off on the idea of new phaser 2 armed fighters.

I do not know what the reasoning is, or if there is background information i am not aware of, but Petrick has resisted adding new phaser 2 assault shuttles.

It came up multiple times (F-11 tiger proposal, 3xphaser 2 proposal, phaser 2 pod thing (although, that may have been Petrick trying to illustrate a point,....).

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, September 04, 2022 - 06:53 pm: Edit

There is a *huge* difference between what I am talking about for the A-1/A-8 and those other proposals.

I am talking about a fighter that is pretty much the equivalent of an old Klingon Z-1 fighter. Honestly, I would rather give the A-1/A-8 a photon rather than a Ph-2, but I worry that it might not be considered strong enough of a fighter frame to withstand the use of a photon. Thus the mention of using a Ph-2. But if it needs to be/can be a photon, that's what I actually wanted.

Honestly, given the examples you give, I seriously doubt that Petrick's objections are using a Ph-2 on a fighter. His objects are about using Ph-2s inappropriately on a fighter. There is a difference.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, September 04, 2022 - 07:57 pm: Edit

It is not just those (and other) proposals.

It was more along the lines of cookie cutterisms.

Every empire just doesn’t need multiple speed 8 single space fighter shuttles witha phaser 2.

If I understood correctly, there needed to be a better justification for adding a phaser 2 than just “so and so empire has a phaser 2 speed 8 fighter so my favorite empire deserves one too!”

If it was just a case of adding a Federation version of a Klingon Z-1 fighter, it could have been done decades ago.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, September 04, 2022 - 09:42 pm: Edit

Jeff, I want to focus on your last comment:

---

Quote:

If I understood correctly, there needed to be a better justification for adding a phaser 2 than just “so and so empire has a phaser 2 speed 8 fighter so my favorite empire deserves one too!”

If it was just a case of adding a Federation version of a Klingon Z-1 fighter, it could have been done decades ago.

---

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, September 04, 2022 - 10:48 pm: Edit

Mike, your proposal, as stated:

“ Fighters use a 50/50 split approach between attack and superiority fighters. Attack fighters use a photon with a single charge. Superiority fighters use an ADD rack. The primary fighters are:
- F-8 (replace drones with ADD-6) and A-8 (replace drones with a single photon). The A-8 may get a Ph-2 instead of a photon. ”

You did not offer any explanation as to why a Phaser 8 is required.

Petrick has never, afaicr, accepted a proposal without examining several factors, mission,role, purpose, tactical issues etc.

Perhaps this will be different, but Petrick has always addressed phaser 2 proposals on fed fighters, it is the history.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 05, 2022 - 02:06 am: Edit

Adding more photon fighters or more phaser-2 fighters is one of those dead horse things. The best you're going to get here is a clone of a foreign fighter with the guns you want, and even then strictly limited to the alternate universe, not available in the real universe.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, September 05, 2022 - 11:54 am: Edit

This has always been restricted to this universe, but sure.

You want clones? Sure. Let's do this.

I want Jackal clones for the superiority fighters. If I can swap parameters around a bit, I will. My versions are too gunned up, but scaling them back isn't an issue. Also, my versions are way more vulnerable. So, if I have to use exact Jackal clones, I will. They are a fair trade.

I want Hyena clones for the assault fighters. It has a photon instead of a disruptor cannon. This is straight up better than my versions (outside the Ph-G on the A-11) by a good margin. I'm fine with it. I'm still making a Ph-G version for the F-14/15 analogs.

Not sold on the Hyena? Sure, let's use the Proton fighter instead. Again, swap out the ion cannon for a photon and away we go. There is only a late-era edition of the Proton, but considering it is virtually identical to the Hyena, making a development progression for it is easy enough.

So, there you go: I want a version of the Jackal straight-up, and I want a Hyena with a photon. We'll forget the Ph-2 as it is pretty much irrelevant at this point. Note that I'd still like to adjust the fighters more to make them more similar to the mainline Fed fighters (which, I want to point out, makes them less hardy), but I am more than willing to use these straight up. Does that work and make everyone happy?

On deployment: the Jackal:Hyena ratio was done at 2:1. The Proton deployment was done at 100%, and any carrier could use them. So, my 50/50 proposal isn't really out of line with anything. If it needs to be 2:1, so be it. But 50/50 is quite justifiable. I'll probably adjust the minimum fighter group size to 8, though, before everything is just superiority.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, September 05, 2022 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Just to throw out an idea, if you're going to introduce an alternate-reality "Feds without drones", why not go all the way and make them "Feds without fighters" as well? Fighters are useful but I don't see that the Feds would absolutely need them to be viable.

The very earliest fighters, with slow drones, aren't that much of a threat (in most circumstances). They can be countered by an adjustment in Fed tactics. (Fighter-launched plasma torpedoes are speed-32 of course. But they are also short ranged and the fighters themselves are fairly slow. It should be possible for the Feds to keep far enough from the fightes themselves to largely neutralize the threat.)

As better fighters become available, along with medium speed drones, the Feds start using escorts, just like other empires use to escort their carrier groups. The Feds don't use them that way, of course. Rather, they start including an escort or two as a standard component of their normal battle fleets, depending on their assessemnt of the fighter / drone risk.

As developments like megafighters and fast drones (and plasma sabot) appear, fighters become more dangerous still. But this is also approximately the same time as PFs and X-ships appear. The Feds adopt both technologies in a big way.

I don't know whether "Feds without fighters" would be a good approach as regards fun gameplay. But as to whether they could be viable against other empires, I think the answer is clearly "yes".

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, September 05, 2022 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Alan, other than offending almost every Federation player of F&E (what do you MEAN when you say we can’t have any carriers or fighter equipped bases!?!). \clipart(grin) I can’t see a down side!

At the risk of causing Petrick hyper apologetic shock, it might force the Federation to review its policy on Skiffs. It works both ways, the Federation might deem skiffs too under protected and thus a danger to the crews, or, since skiffs are the last remaining module Rule K units in the Federation arsenal, a review towards improving Federation skiffs defenses and offense.

Either way, it leaves the Federation in a more traditional Position. Reminiscent of TOS rather than the later series themes.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 05, 2022 - 07:37 pm: Edit

I think the general idea is to have the Feds with no drones, rather than 'Feds with no drones and weird changes'. No skiff improvements imo.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 05, 2022 - 07:39 pm: Edit

With ADDs being related to drone technology (you never see ADDs in an empire without drones), I am skeptical about these Feds even having ADDs.

They should probably be limited to have no ADDs on any units and just make do without.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, September 05, 2022 - 08:20 pm: Edit

The problem with no fighters is that the Federation won't be able to keep up in F&E if they don't have fighters. They need attrition units and frigates are horribly expensive attrition units. Because of how the SFU is structured having fighters is not optional. (Unless, of course, no one has fighters.) So, fighters of some sort are pretty much required.

And escorts are not allowed to be deployed outside carrier groups. (And maybe the occasional PF Tender.) I don't see Petrick buying into changing that rule. I'm sure that request has been made (and rejected) more times than Fed Ph-2 fighters have. I would be amazed if that doesn't qualify for dead horse status.

As for the use of ADDs, they are used to fight drones. Ergo, I don't see why they are not appropriate. Honestly, I fail to see the issue. This same objection was made in the CDS proposal, and the use of ADDs by a drone-less Federation was deemed OK. I don't see where that has changed. Besides, it isn't even widely used in this fleet. It's only used by escorts and fighters. It really shouldn't be a big issue.

And no to skiff weirdness. The units would have to be carried by ships to be useful. Skiff-like units that are carried by ships are called gunboats. Just cut to the chase and use gunboats. Which is definitely an option. There are already two published alternative history Federations that use gunboats. The use of gunboats is obviously a viable option.

But you can't only use gunboats with no fighters. They are introduced too late. There is a period of about a decade where fighters are required to bridge the gap to gunboats. And, no, the Federation can't get them early. The units were developed by the Lyrans and the Federation has to wait for the technology to make it around to them.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 05, 2022 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Which empire currently in the game has ADDs but no drones. Address that, please.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, September 05, 2022 - 09:43 pm: Edit

Mike, some responses:

---

Quote:

... the Federation won't be able to keep up in F&E if they don't have fighters.

---

---

Quote:

And escorts are not allowed to be deployed outside carrier groups.

---

---

Quote:

And no to skiff weirdness.

---

---

Quote:

There is a period of about a decade where fighters are required to bridge the gap to gunboats.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 06, 2022 - 03:14 am: Edit

No fighters is not a good way to proceed.

For a photon fighter why not take one you have and delete the drones and lower the points and stop there.

Someone remind me which empire has Jackal and Hyena.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, September 06, 2022 - 07:29 am: Edit

Jackal and Hyena sound like Carnivon, but I don't know for sure.

Note that if the Feds don't build their own fighters, they could get them from an ally (Kzinti?). There's precedence for this sort of thing with the LDR/Lyrans/Seltorians. Those fighters could even use drones, though the Fed ships don't. Again, precedence for this exists.

By Philippe Le Bas (Phil76) on Tuesday, September 06, 2022 - 07:40 am: Edit

In C6 R19-F : Jackal Carnivon superiority fighter, Hyena Carnivon Assault fighter

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, September 06, 2022 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Jackal and Hyena are Carnivon in C6.

For a Fed fighter, the only single-space fighter I have available is an A-10 and it is too expensive, too good, takes too much damage, and is too slow to use outside its historical role.

Here are my revised photon fighters. In all cases, I strip drones and put on a photon. For the A-1, A-2, and A-2B I even take off a phaser just to make more room. The A-13 trades the four type-I drones for its photon and then puts RALADs for the light rails. The A-12 swaps type-I and special rails for a photon and the light rails for RALADs. In all cases the photon takes the space of at least four rails or fewer rails plus a phaser. One could argue that the A-2s and A-3 could have a pair of additional RALAD, but I am leaving them off for now.

- A-1 (F-8): 1xPhot-FA, 8 speed, 8 damage, 1 chaff.
- A-2 (F-18): 1xPhot-FA, 1xPh-3-FA, 13 speed, 10 damage, 1 chaff.
- A-2B (F-18B): 1xPhot-FA, 1xPh-3-FA, 15 speed, 10 damage, 2 chaff.
- A-3 (F-18B+): 1xPhot-FA, 2xPh-3-FA, 15 speed, 10 damage, 2 chaff.
- A-12 (A-10): 1xPhot-FA, 2xRALAD, 1xPh-3-FA, 1xPh-3-RA, 10 speed, 16 damage, 1 chaff.
- A-13 (F15): 1xPhot-FA, 4xRALAD, 1xPh-G-FA, 15 speed, 12 damage, 2 chaff.

For the ADD fighters, I am just taking the standard Fed fighters and swapping out drones for RALADs. My initial pass is too good. I admit that, but I also said the ADD loadout might have to change.

Here are the revised ADD fighters. It literally just swaps drones for RALADs. Optionally, the F-2, F-2B, F-3, F-11, and F-13 could all use some combination of ADD racks, but I am sticking with RALADs just to keep things direct for now.

- F-1 (F-8): 2xRALAD, 1xPh-3-FA, 8 speed, 8 damage, 1 chaff.
- F-2 (F-18): 4xRALAD, 2xPh-3-FA, 13 speed, 10 damage, 1 chaff.
- F-2B (F-18B): 4xRALAD, 2xPh-3-FA, 15 speed, 10 damage, 2 chaff.
- F-3 (F-18B+): 6xRALAD, 2xPh-3-FA, 15 speed, 10 damage, 2 chaff.
- F-6 (F-20): 2xRALAD, 2xPh-3-FA, 12 speed, 8 damage, 2 chaff.
- F-11 (F-14): 6xRALAD, 1xPh-G-FA, 15 speed, 12 damage, 2 chaff.
- F-13 (F-15): 8xRALAD, 1xPh-G-FA, 15 speed, 12 damage, 2 chaff.

Note that the above revised versions are categorically worse than the Jackal and Hyena fighters because those two end up with a ludicrous 14 damage points and speed 15. (Seriously, I still don't know how the Hyena and Proton fighters were ever approved as published. The Proton is Vudar.)

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, September 06, 2022 - 12:23 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Which empire currently in the game has ADDs but no drones. Address that, please.

---

---

Quote:

Feds without drones can have anti drones without violating Jewish dietary laws. So says the game’s overwrought designer. Let it be written... let it be done.

ADD = Anti Drone Defense.

---

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, September 06, 2022 - 12:52 pm: Edit

What if you used the mini / half-sized Photon torpedo for your hypothetical non-drone Fed fighters???


Garth L. Getgen

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, September 06, 2022 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Garth,

I mentioned that early in this thread: I am avoiding photon variants like the plague.

If I were to use a light photon, then I would open up the entire fleet to the light photon. (And, presumably, the heavy photon.) I don't want that and am actively avoiding it. I don't want the ship designs to radically change and introducing the light photon means that the ship designs will definitely radically change. That means introducing the light photon is a contagion that is dangerous to what is otherwise being done here. So, no, I don't want to touch it.

(In the CDS proposal, the fighter-based half-photon used there works differently from the light photon, and its technobabble reinforced that it can only be used with photon freezers, in order to avoid just this issue.)

Plus, I am trying very hard to stay with no new rules. Using a light photon is very much a "new rules" from the perspective of this proposal. The light photon rules currently only exist in an Omega module and in a playtest module. For the purposes of this proposal, light photons are very definitely a "new rule".

So, no, despite the genesis of this particular thread, I don't think including photon variants is a good idea.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, September 06, 2022 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Quick update on the revised fighters above.

On the fighter photons, I am going with the assumption that the photon is basically equivalent to four full rails. If there are not four full rails, a phaser is lost.

In light of this, the A-1 may not be able to be based on the F-8 as it doesn't have enough to trade out. Therefore, it likely needs to be based on the F-4 which has the light rails to include in the trade. (Like is done for the A-2 and A-2B.) So, its line would be revised to:
- A-1 (F-4): 1xPhot-FA, 8 speed, 9 damage, 1 chaff.

Ironically, this means it gains an extra damage point. It still loses its phaser.

The back-story I'd use is that both the F-1/A-1 pair and the F-11/A-12 pairs were based on different frames. When the F-2 frame was developed, they realized it could support both the F and A variants, which allowed for much more streamlined maintenance, resulting in the F-2 and A-2. This continued with the F/A-3 and F/A-13.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Thursday, September 08, 2022 - 01:27 pm: Edit

First off Mike thanks for putting together all this material about the proposed Feds without drones. It has been interesting reading for me to think about these possibilities.

One question I had about the proposed fighter groups was the armaments on the F-18 analogs above.

These fighters appear to only be armed with P3 and RALADs, and of course no regular drones as that is the nature of the proposal. The proposal goes on to articulate a 50/50 split with superiority and photon fighter groups on Fed carriers.

Now for those Fed carriers which historically did not carry photon fighters, is the proposal for them to start doing so? So, ships like NVL or FFV which only operated drone armed fighters, they'd now carry 50/50 groups?

Now back in the day a Fed ship had to have special photon freezers on the SSD in order to generate and load fighter photons. This was typically limited to CVA, back in the day. As I read through the rules today this seems to have changed (a few decades will do that -- either to rules or my memory) and now seemingly any ship carrying photon fighters can regenerate the photons just by having the appropriate fighters boxes and paying the arming cost (J4.85). This might be challenging from a power perspective for something small like FFV but doable (slowly) if carefully planned.

Is that the intent? So FFV for example would carry something like 3xF2 and 3xA2? NVL would carry 6xF2 and 6xA2?

And if that is the intent, it would appear to be necessary as P3 and RALADS armed fighters have very little anti-ship capability and need photon fighters in the group to have anti-ship punch?

--Mike

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, September 08, 2022 - 02:13 pm: Edit

Mike,

Yes. That is exactly the intent. So, for example a CVS carries 12xF-18. With these Feds, that same CVS would carry 6xF-2 and 6xA-2. Six of the ready racks would be able to service the A-2 fighters and reload their photons. That is indeed an implicit change for any carrier that is going to now carry an assault fighter. (And separate photon freezer boxes haven't existed since before late in the Commander's Edition rules.)

That would apply to any carrier with eight or more fighters, from the DWV (4xF-2 and 4xA-2) all the way up to the CVD (12xF-2 and 12xA-2) and CVA (12xF-11, 12xA-12). With less than eight fighters, they just carry the superiority fights. So the FFV would simply carry 6xF-2.

Anything that, by design, carries a full squadron of fighters and a full squadron of heavy fighters gets a little weird. And the SCS and SDS get super weird. While I have suggestions on their fighter groups, I could be wrong.

Also, don't forget that the escort rules don't change at all, so no escort can reload the photons on a photon fighter. They only have superiority fighter ready racks. This does not try to change that, nor should it.

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

The thoughts behind the fighter choices are based on the idea that, with the limitations set in this exercise, these Feds have exactly three weapons choices: photons, phasers, and ADDs. The first thought is to just load up on photon fighters and call it a day. But, that requires a LOT of power from carriers that do not have that much power at all. So, I cut the number of photon fighters in half. The idea being that the photon fighters' job is to just hit the enemy ships. The other half are superiority fighters whose job is to protect the other fighters from enemy fighters and drones. The superiority fighters can either be armed with phasers only, or with phasers and ADDs. I chose the latter because making phaser-only fighters is highly problematic* and using phasers and ADDs makes the fighters more interesting. And ADDs are useful against other fighters. Thus the fighters seen above.

And, yes, the ADD fighters are short ranged. But, when you get down to it, a phaser-only fighter would also be short ranged, too. Honestly, most non-drone and non-Pl-F fighters are very short ranged, so they fit right in.

[*] How are phaser-only fighter problematic? Well, aside from the discussion a little earlier about how Ph-2 fighters are completely forbidden and not available for consideration, just think about this. An F-18 has 2xPh-3, 2xI, 2xVI. If I convert it to ADDs, then it gets 2xPh-3 and 4xADD. (Those ADDs can be 4xRALAD or ADD-4, but the effect is the same.) If, however, I convert to phaser-only, then it ends up having 4xPh-3. Let's see, what other fighter has stats that look like 4xPh-3, 10 damage, speed 15? Well, to me that looks a lot like a St-F. Think a proposal to replace half of all Fed fighters with something that effectively carries a Ph-G will go over well? No? Didn't think so. So, I stick with the ADDs.