Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through July 24, 2003	25		07/24 10:39pm
	Archive through July 26, 2003	25		07/26 05:59pm
	Archive through July 28, 2003	25		07/28 12:44am

Alan, fighters and ships use different versions of the gatling

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 01:18 am: Edit

David Lang:

In the historical SFB - yes.

In a free campaign - that is exactly one of the issues the campaign designer will have to decide, depending on what will "work" given the other campaign assumptions.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 01:27 am: Edit

true. and even if the aren't interchangeable they may be tied togeather for production limits (since fighter gatlings are so much easier to destroy it may make sense to to say you can build 1 ship gatling or 4 fighter gatlings or something like that

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 02:05 am: Edit

David Lang:

Interesting that you should bring up that 1 to 4 ratio. In the free campaigns I've been in, we generally allow races to produce very limited amounts of foreign technology if there's an "official" ADB ship for the race that uses that technology. Therefor the Klingons can build Maulers in very small numbers even if not allied to the Romulans. But the Feds can not build Maulers at all. Specifically for the Tholians, In the most recent campaign I played in, the Tholians could produce on their own 4 Photon Torpedos every 6 months. Thus they could build 1 CWP or 2 DDPs or convert a D to a DP and build a DDP, or any other combination that didn't require more than 4 photons. Since fighter-photons for the Spider-4P (this campaign was before J2 so the Spider-5P wasn't published yet) had a range limit of 12 and couldn't be overloaded, they were ruled easier to build than standard photons and could be built at a 3 to 1 rate. Thus in a 6 month period, the Tholians could build 12 fighter-photons, enough for one squadron, at the cost of not building any photon ships during that period.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 01:56 pm: Edit

Stewart W Frazier,

No, I didn't miss any point about no campaign being inheirently unbalanced. Maybe I missed some implication because I don't see where it matters.

The important thing to me is that when you change the Order of Battle, which is what we're talking about, you can give one race an unfair advantage over another or even everybody else. Or a disadvantage. Even if the campaign will never be "balanced" you want everybody to start off on an even footing.

The example we're using is Feds using PFs. If we let them do that, it stands to reason they're tougher than they were before. What do we have to take away to make them about as tough as they were before we gave them PFs?

Kinda the core question of this thread.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 02:08 pm: Edit

John T, instead of PF's the feds get F-111, CVBG, and a 4th squadron. take those away and they get just as much tougher when they get PF's as everyone else does.

the problems started when people started saying that the good fed fighters and escorts are also a part of the 3rd way and would need to be removed as well

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 02:18 pm: Edit

To add to what you've said, John:

The Fed PF specifically replaces the Fed F-111 (and, by extention, the FB-111). The exception to this is the SCSA, which replaces 6xA-20 with a PF flotilla. (I believe this to create an overly powerful unit, as the SCSA retains its two fighter squadrons, one F-14 squadron and one F-18 squadron). As the Fed PF is more powerful than the F-111 (the FB-111 being under bomber basing restrictions), the Fed fleet is more powerful with the PF than with the F-111.

However, the deployment of PFs by the Feds also precludes the development of the Third Way, which is currently only codified in F&E; it has not been cross-implemented in SFB yet. (Then again, neither have battlegroups, CVBGs, Admirals, or Command Points.) The question is, how balanced is a Fed fleet with PFs instead of the F-111 line and the Third Way?

At the level of SFB, (S8.0) and BPV are the balancing tools. Until the Third Way is imported into SFB, a Fed player has the same limit as everyone else in putting together a battleforce - three fighter squadrons. Everyone else, however, can field up to three PF flotillas (although SCS and PFT deployment limitations make it difficult to get the full three flotillas - though it's certainly not impossible). What makes a Fed fleet balanced in this situation? Is it just BPV (and BPV distribution, i.e. the Fed can afford more starship hulls because the opponent has more BPV in PFs than the Fed has in fighters)? Is it the Feds' superior fighters? Or are the Feds disadvantaged without the Third Way?

If we add PFs to the Feds, we change whatever balance exists, because the PFs are more powerful than even the Feds' superior fighters. Is the removal of the F-111 line and the Third Way sufficient to restore the balance (particularly given that the Third Way has not yet been imported into SFB)?

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 02:29 pm: Edit

David,

I was the one who said that, and I said that the gatling-armed fighters (in particular) and escorts 'felt' like 'precursors' of the Third Way. I've since retreated from that position, though, and I'm focussing my comments on whether or not the exchange of F-111/Third Way for PFs is sufficient. Of particular note is the fact that the Third Way (and other command rules from F&E) have not yet been officially ported into SFB, nor am I aware of any plans to do so (though I'd love to have them). So, strictly within SFB, there are three questions:

1. Is the Federation fleet, with its superior fighters (including the F-111), absent the Third Way (not currently in SFB), balanced vis-a-vis other races with their PFs?

2. If the answer to 1. is 'yes', then does the substitution of the Fed PF for the F-111 disrupt that balance in favor of the Feds?

3. If the answer to 2. is 'yes', what would be appropriate to do to rebalance the Feds?

Note that, if the Third Way (and related command rules) are ever officially imported into SFB, questions 1. and 2. would be affected accordingly.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 02:44 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

RandyB said:
...Admirals, or Command Points....

---

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Randy, the fed fleet with F-111's but without the 3rd way is not balanced with other races. (if it was the 3rd way would not have been developed)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 03:49 pm: Edit

...so we're mostly agreed that trading the 4th squadron and the F-111 line of fighters for Fed PFs is about equal?

Anyone here think that the Feds still have an advanatge? If so, where and what should be done?

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 03:52 pm: Edit

John, the command benifits of the CVBG also need to disappear when PF's arrive (combine 2 carrier groups and they count as 1 less for command purposes)

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Scott,

Command points are mentioned in passing, but there are no guidelines for their use. And there are no rules defining the value of an Admiral in SFB terms - ex. some BPV value for taking an Admiral (and the comand point that accompanies that Admiral).


David,

In F&E, where the Third Way originates, that is unarguably true. F&E, however, does not use the SFB BPV system to balance battles. The question is, under the SFB BPV system, is the Federation competitive (in the current absence of Third Way rules for SFB) with F-111s and without PFs. Under SFB, if the opponent uses PFs while the Fed is limited to fighters (including F-111s), does the BPV difference (and S8.0) allow the Feds enough additional force to balance the scenario?

Also, the CVBG is, I thought, an 'all races' thing rather than a 'Fed only' thing.


John,

Under SFB there is no fourth squadron; the Third Way rules are F&E only at this time.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Randy, that would be so hard to guess what a command point is worth.

A command point is not worth as much Y169 as it is Y180.

Lets say, "Build a fleet w/ 1800 BPV".

I choose a well-rounded but SCS-led fleet. Not remembering about Command Points.

You choose a Fed fleet w/ a command point and maxed out on NCLs and DWs to prox me to death (from other threads people are talking about fleet battles).

A Command Point both sides need to know about, and happen so rarely, (how often is a full S8 fleet made??) it shouldn't really effect SFB.

Command Points and Admirals, this realm goes into almost 'fantasy' SFB, we are talking Flagship, Free Scout, BattleGroup (6 ships counts as 5), Command Points and Admirals. 15-ship fleets (or 16 if your Fed's w/ CVBGs).

How often is a 15-ship vs 15-ship battle going to happen in SFB?

How often do you hear? "Man, my CC could only led 9 ships, and had enough BPV for just 1 more...".

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 04:50 pm: Edit

the CVBG (carrier BATTLE group) is a fed only thing, the other races get a CVEG (carrier ESCORT group) which allows a escort carrier to be added to another carrier group, it makes no difference in command rating slots, it's only advantage is that in F&E individual ships in a carrier group can't be targeted, only the entire group can and so the more ships in the group the harder it is to damage any of them. in SFB this would have no effect at all.

are we talking about pickup battles or a campaign here?

in pickup battles any two fleets should be evenly matched if they have the same BPV (in theory anyway ) which should mean that you could give the feds PF's AND F-111's and since they have to pay fo them all in BPV they will be balanced

in a campaign most of S8 doesn't apply. the command ratings do, the consort requirements (for SFG and maulers) do, and the requirements for carrier escorts do. all the rest of the limits that talk about how many of what type of ship you can have are in there to simulate the restrictions of a campaign for a pickup battle, if you have a campaign then those limits should be ignored.

yes this means that in a campaign you may have a fleet of 12 DN's in a fight, but you get that by stripping DN's away from your other fleets (or jsut building a TON of them like the lyrans can) the availability of DN's for a battle will be regulated by how hard they are to build in the campaign and how many places you need them, not by S8

in a campaign you won't be bringing X bpv of ships to a fight you will be fighting with what you have in the area

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Scott,

That's true. What's it worth to be able to get another ship-equivalent into a fleet in a BPV battle? It is tough to call. An Admiral would be a combination of a command point and a scenario target (or else it's just a command point); do those balance out? If so, what's the point in designating an Admiral?


David,

Well, I don't have the F&E rulebooks yet (and it looks to be a while before I can acquire them, unfortunately), so I'm getting the rules piecemeal. As I understand the CVBG rules, they allow two carrier groups to be grouped together and count as one fewer ships for command rating purposes.

I feel like I'm talking in circles. I blame no one but myself, of course. I initially proposed a set of guidelines for a Federation player in a hypothetical free campaign using F&Eish (i.e. historical) economic and production rules who wanted to use PFs. I felt that the Federation gatling-armed fighters and escorts 'led to' the Third Way in some fashion, but I've since come to understand otherwise. I understand the implications of both the Third Way and the substitution of PFs for F-111s. What I realize led me to this topic, and what I still have trouble with, is the substitution of PFs for A-20s on the SCSA. That produces a flight group of 12xF-14s, 12xF-18s, and 6xPFs, far superior (due largely to the F-14s) to any competing SCS flight group and surpassed only be the Kzinti SSCS flight group.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Randy, no problem, that's why I am attempting to explain the relavent rules (and I will point out that a rulebook as a spare part is between $5 and $15m you don't have to buy the $50 game)

you have the correct understanding of the CVBG

the difference between an admiral and a command point is

every race has a handful of admirals, they always add 1 to the command rating of the ship they are on

a command point represents a significant one-time investment in staff planning, intella\igence gathering, etc that can be given to any ship captian for implementation, but the plans can only be used once.

before admirals were added to F&E each race got 1 command point per 6 month turn and could buy another one for 5 EP (the cost of building a CW!!) and admiral acts like a free command point each turn, but you can only use it where the admiral is.

as for the SCSA, didn't the module that included the fed PF's also include a SCS to carry them? if so use those fed PFT rather then just converting the F-111 carriers (unless there is a class published since then that is only represented with F-111 like the ships in J2)

even if you continue to use the SCSA with the PF's replacing the A-20's remember that the carrier itself is far weaker then competing races SCS class ships and if you want a terrifying strike group consider the hydran Iron Chansler with it's 40 stingers that count as 2 squadrons (one 12 fighter squadron and one 28 fighter oversized squadron) give them all megafighter packs and I'll take on your SCSA group (that's 600 BPV in fighters, not counting chaff packs or pods )

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 06:28 pm: Edit

David,

The SCSA is a Fed SCS converted to carry PFs instead of A-20s. All other Fed F-111 carriers are assumed to be PFTs instead if the Feds build PFs. And I'm comparing them to neighboring fleets; Hydrans are a Special Case of a Special Case.

And I'm actually short enough on cash that I can't get the rulebooks as spare parts right now. I'll see if I can find someone to borrow them from. (And transcribe the relevant sections for Personal Use Only.)

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 06:40 pm: Edit

I'm still not cleaf if the SCSA is the SCS that was published with the PF's or is everyone just converting the normal SCS?

with 2 squadrons of fighters and PF's it's got a very good strike group, but considering that the base hull is a fair bit weaker I don't think it's overpowering (it may be the most powerful combination of the two on balance, but someone has to have the best one)

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 06:49 pm: Edit

David, here's the rundown of the differance between the Fed SCS and SCSA.

Take out 6 shuttles (since these were special shuttle boxes w/ mechlinks IIRC). Add 2 trac+4(?) repair.

Add 6 PFs on 6 of the 7 tractors.

Carries 12F18, 12F14, 6PF, 2SWACs also.

So in essence, it only replaces the 6 A20's w/ 6 PFs.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, August 13, 2020 - 04:13 pm: Edit

Not 100% related to this subject, but somewhat related.

The rule for Cluster Bombs (E20.36) says that each unit occupies two drone spaces (or pod rails) on fighters or MRS shuttles.

I'd like to propose that the Federation F-101 and F-111 fighters (and their Gorn equivalents) can carry Cluster Bombs at a rate of one BAY SPACE per bomb.

We all know the Feds don't have PFGs (at least not according to the "Federation Third Way"); something that puts the Feds at a minor disadvantage (an admitted fig leaf coverage??). Also, the Gorn have "A penchant for ground combat," so I think it not unfair for them to have this advantage as well.

PSB for it? The bays are set up for bombs, so there's no need for additional "Rack Attachments" that're required for normal Cluster Bomb deployment.