Dunno how realistic this would be to implement, but I'm really tired of all the paperwork involved in carrier duels. So, an idea:

(Jx.0) Flight Level Combat
Group flights of 6 fighters into 'flights'. A flight is represented by 1 counter, and moves and acts as if it were a single unit.

(Jx.1) Attack
(Jx.11) Targets: A 'flight' can only fire 1 TYPE of weapon at a target a turn. IE., a flight of F-18Cs could fire their Type-IIIs at a Klingon D7V, and their Type-VIs at a flight of enemy fighters. But, it could not fire half the Type-IIIs are the D7V and the other half at its escort.

(Jx.12) ECCM: A 'flight' benefits from the fact that it is collectively working at engaging the same target. As all fighters are in the same hex, the ship-to-ship communications is fast enough to have the fighters act as a large, distributed, sensor array. As a result, a flight receives +2 ECCM against all targets they attack.
(Jx.121)If two targets are attacked simultaneously (requiring different weapons systems as per Jx.12) the flight generates only half the maximum ECCM on each target.
(Jx.122)A 'short flight' (less than 6 fighters) receives only a maximum of +1 ECCM and a flight of 3 fighters or less receives no bonus.
(Jx.13 Dogfights: As the flight of fighters are all operating in close proximity, it makes it much simpler for each fighter in the flight to collectively 'cover each other's backs'. As a result, all fighters in the flight receive +.5 to their DFR for every fighter currently in the flight.

(Jx.2) Defense
(Jx.21) Being attacked: When attacking a flight, an enemy ship can target a specific fighter and attack it using standard rules for fighter engagement. The fact that it is part of a flight is irrelevant.

(Jx.22) Being damaged: As fighters in the flight take damage, they may become crippled or otherwise unable to perform the same maneuvers the rest of the flight is. If this occurs, the crippled fighter must drop out of the flight and return to the carrier. It may take no other actions but to fly straight back to the carrier.
(Jx.221) Alternatively, remove the crippled fighter from play. The turn following the next full turn after the fighter was crippled, place it back in the carrier's hangar (or one of the carrier's escorts). It may not deploy again until it can be part of a flight leaving the carrier - which means it must be able to maneuver exactly as well as the fighters in the flight.

(Jx.3) Forming
(Jx.31) From carrier: A 'flight' can only form from a carrier on launch.
(Jx.311) A flight must consist of at least 4 fighters capable of moving the same speed with the same maneuver restrictions.
(Jx.32) 'Cripple Flight': A flight can be created using entirely crippled fighters. Note the restriction of Jx.311, however.
(Jx.33) Type: Fighters of any type except heavy fighters and bombers may form flights.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 09:05 pm: Edit

What is the advantage of this over normal SFB fighter combat?

And what defense would a tight formation have against a couple Tbombs?

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 10:11 pm: Edit

1) MUCH less book-keeping. All drones at a target would be launched at once, so you have at most 2 drone stacks instead of six counters. Also, only 1 fighter stack instead of 6 fighters to keep track of for things like movement, turn mode, slips, HETs, etc. Right now, if a CVA's full wing (24 fighters) each fired their Type-Is at a starship and Type-VIs at fighters in a turn, you'd potentially have !72! counters on the board. All having to keep track of speed, turning, HETs, etc. With this proposal, you now only have 12 - but with the exact same firepower and damage potential!

2) They don't have any advantage in defense to that attack. In fact, they are much more vulnerable to it - hence the significant advantages they get elsewhere: +2 ECCM and up to +3 DFR, for starters. Next, using Jx.221, cripples can be immune to further attack and get back to the carrier for a chance at repair. Finally, it's just easier to run a game that way.

Sure, it's a BIG disadvantage to stack fighters - common sense in SFB rails against it (mines, T-Bombs, Starfish drones, etc). Hence, the large number of fairly significant advantages they get.

(I fear it may not be enough, though - a drone fighter using race would still have a rough time of it with the Andros using these rules)

By Ben Moldovan (Shadow1) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:46 pm: Edit

XF: Cool handle, I like that. As for your proposal, it certainly is interesting. I haven't decided whether I like it or not.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 01:09 pm: Edit

Specific comments on what you like/dislike about it?

I'm just trying to throw something out to make CVA vs CVA battles feasible. Note my above example with 72 counters vs 12. Now, take that to the next step with TWO CVA wings doing the same thing against each other.

Now, it's 144 counters and units to keep track of vs !24!. That's a vast difference, and makes it worthwhile, I think, to explore the possibility.

Instead of CVA vs CVA duels being a chore that takes a weekend to resolve, they can be handled in an evening with only a little more complexity than your typical squadron to squadron duel.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 08:54 pm: Edit

For one thing, 6 fighters to a flight might run into copyright problems with Babylon 5 Wars.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 10:29 pm: Edit

How would that run into copyright issues with Babylon 5 Wars? That's like saying that our concepts of carriers is in violation of copyright laws with the Navy, since they have carriers and operate fighters too. It's an idea, not a verbatim copy.

Sounds like kind of a neat idea.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:10 pm: Edit

Forcing drones into single stacks targeted on one unit will make them very vulnerable to transporter bombs and wild weasels. That change would keep me from using this rule.

By John Kasper (Jvontr) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 08:19 am: Edit

You might add a new rule for T-bombs that is only used w/ this rule. The drones each get a saving throw - destroyed on 1-4, no effect 5-6. This reflects that the stack is actually only showing the center of gravity of the drone swarm and, in reality, not all of them are in the same hex.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 11:35 am: Edit

The drones each get a saving throw - ...This reflects that the stack is actually only showing the center of gravity of the drone swarm and

Oooh, now THAT is a good idea. Was trying to grapple with that - couldn't really give them combat bonuses like I did with the fighters, but this might take care of the problem nicely.

In any case, yes, there WOULD still be disadvantages to this. However, there are also pretty strong advantages. I'd like to think they, at least, cancelled each other out leaving the player just wondering if they want to play with fighters in a quicker way or the longer (standard) way.