For free campaigns, where the Federation player chooses to build INT/PF instead of developing the Third Way, simply substituting INT/PF for heavy fighters (F-111s mostly, though the SCSA substitutes them for A-20s) appears to be imbalancing toward the Federation. Therefore, I present the following as optional (house) rules for such a case.

0. The decision to (eventually) build INT/PF instead of developing the Third Way must be made at the beginning of the campaign, as these guidelines take effect before the development of INT/PF.

1. The Federation does not develop gatling-armed fighters. No F-14, F-15, F-16, F-111, or FB-111. The B-1 and B-2 bomber have their Ph-G replaced with 2 Ph-3.

2. The Ph-G on Federation carriers and escorts are replaced by Ph-F. The Ph-F is a new phaser system. It costs one point of power to arm, and can fire twice as a Ph-3 as if it were a Ph-G. Basically, it's a half-Ph-G.

3. The F-18 is replaced by the F/A-18. The F/A-18 is identical to the F-18, except that the DFR = 4 and the drone firing rate is equivalent to the F-15.

4. All F-111-carrying ships carry INT/PF instead. The A-20-carrying NVH was never developed.

5. The SCSA is replaced by a CVA variant carrying 12xF/A-18 and 6xPF.

Comments?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 07:57 pm: Edit

Why?

Phaser-Gs are in the Federation arsenal starting in 168. That is 10 years before PFs are even though of.

Giving up

1. The Best Escorts in the game
2. The Best Fighters in the game
3. The 2 Best Heavy Fighters in the game

For a mediocre at best PF seems.......well......nuts.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:10 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Why?

---

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:12 pm: Edit

One thing.

You can't use the Third way if you are using PFs. So, you are limited to three squadrons/flotillas, just like anyone else.

The Third Way has nothing to do with the types of units. How could a unit that is 10-15 years old be a precursor to a Command and Control Strategy? That just does not make sense to me.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:16 pm: Edit

In the campaign I'm GMing (which uses fleets smaller the F&E limits and fewer allowed fighter/PF squadrons), we have limited the use of Megafighters to one or two squadron in service with any given race at any one time. However, if the Federation opts not to build INTs and PFs, they are allowed to build megafighters without restriction (the only race that can do so).

Now we just have to wait and see if the Feds decide to take the "all-Megafighter" third way or opt for PFs and INTs instead.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:17 pm: Edit

Also, how do the escorts desgined during a period when there were F-4s and A-6s and no CVA in existence have anything to do with that Command and Control doctrine?

I'm sorry, but any Fed player who would give up all those marvelous toys for a period of 10-15 years, just so they can buy a subpar PF has no sense at all.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit

I'd take a all-mega fighter route myself. With computer control for those F-14MFs you can launch a whole crap load of drones in a single impulse.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:27 pm: Edit

I'm viewing what I have called here the 'Conjectural Way' as an alternative to the Third Way. I understand that the Third Way is a Command and Control doctrine, but the development of that doctrine, I believe, has its roots in the superiority of the Federation carrier groups, which are largely (though not exclusively) the result of the deployment of gatling phasers (shipboard and fighter-deployed) in the carrier groups. What I am trying to represent is a development history that would not lead to the Third Way, but to the deployment of PFs. The current 'conjectural' rules call for the deployment of PFs on top of the gatling armed carrier groups, which I believe to be unbalancing. (And in the case of the SCSA, violates the flavor text which prevents the deployment of F-111s on the historical SCS.)

Perhaps I misperceive the relationship between the quality of early-to-mid GW Fed carrier groups and the decision to develop the Third Way Command and Control doctrine and technology.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:32 pm: Edit

It would probably be produnt to leave the Feds their escorts. Tampering with SSDs would just make trouble.

Perhaps the F-14B never comes into existence and the C becomes based on the A.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Well, consider historically there were 3xCVA,2xCVB, the rest being made up of NVL,NVS,CVS etc. BCV and BCS ships come out after PFs and F-111s, so not really a factor.

All carriers except the CVA and CVB carrier standard F-18s. The CVA is the only mainline carrier that carries F-14s, the DVL is a new addition to the small number of ships with this excellent fighter, but there is only one of those ships.

I don't see how a specific carrier strategy can be developed from a group of fighters that makes up about 5% of the overall Federation fighter deployment.

Also, the Third Way was developed in response to enemy PF deployment, after a decision that the loss of life was not acceptable. If the Feds had decided to accept the loss of life and developed PFs instead, the fighters of the past would still be there.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Randy, while you are crippling the fed fighters and escorts are you going to do anything to improve their lousy CVA or do they just have to take the worst of everything to get PF's?

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:37 pm: Edit

No tampering with SSDs necessary. The Ph-Gs would simply have two shots instead of four. The alternatives I saw were to replace each Ph-G with either two Ph-3 (same power cost and firepower as my proposal, but twice the damage to destroy, creating a small damage sink) or one Ph-1 (which creates a vastly different combat dynamic, as it replaces a defensive/close range weapons system with an offensive/longer ranged weapon system).

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:39 pm: Edit

Also, the F-16, FB-111, B1 and B2 are part of planetary defense forces and not part of the Third Way doctine in any case.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:40 pm: Edit

David does make an excelent point. Without the Phaser-Gs, the fabulous escorts and the extrememly powerful fighters, the Fed CVA becomes the absolute worst in the game.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Also you would need to recalculate BPVs....

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:49 pm: Edit

Christopher,

I'm familiar with the 'acceptable losses' aspect of the decision to develop the Third Way. I also perceive, to some degree, a sense of 'we have the best fighters in known space, why set them aside when we can leverage them instead'; though the deployment levels you pointed out do argue against that being a factor.

And I'm looking at balancing a hypothetical free campaign. My proposal is intended to bring the pre-INT/PF Federation into rough parity with competing races, rather than having a handful of carriers with superior fighters and the rest with (marginally) inferior fighters, with the carriers and their escorts superior in close defense. Then, when the Federation deploys INT/PF (though ostensibly middle of the road in quality) instead of the Third Way, rough parity is maintained.


David,

There's a thread elsewhere which discusses improving the CVA. I opined there that there's clearly room in the Federation fleet (historical or conjectural) for an improved CVA, call it a CVG, which has the forward saucer of the DNG and the rear hull of the CVA, with vital systems not found in acceptable quantity on either hull (batteries, probe, etc.) incorporated into one of the two hulls to keep the ship 'complete'. I'd definitely support the inclusion of such a design into the Conjectural Way I'm proposing (as well as the CVG being used as the basis for the one squadron/one flotilla SCS).

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:52 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Also, the F-16, FB-111, B1 and B2 are part of planetary defense forces and not part of the Third Way doctine in any case.

---

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 08:54 pm: Edit

John,

A telling point. The effect is for the carriers and their escorts to have half the defensive shots than current, and that should affect BPV.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 09:16 pm: Edit

That's why I would favor leaving the Fed escorts and carriers with their P-G's.

Whether they get fighters with P-G's would be another matter.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 09:21 pm: Edit

I had originally thought to leave the Ph-Gs on the carriers and escorts, but then hit on the 'half-gatling' as a compromise. The need to revise BPVs, though, leaves me in agreement. Leave the gatlings on the carriers and escorts, then.

Given the deployment details Christopher provided, a lack of gatling-armed fighters should have a minimal effect on the pre-INT/PF Federation fleet, as most of the Fed fighter deployment is F-18s, and the minimal improvement in the F-18 to the proposed F/A-18 would similarly be of minimal effect.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Randy.......

Even though there were not many ships deployed with the F-14 or F-15, those few ships did form the core of the Federation striking arm. Without those units, the Feds are very much have no teeth.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:16 pm: Edit

Christopher,

Are those few carrier groups that fundamental to the GW Fed fleet? I'm willing to concede that they are, but I don't have the data to argue one way or the other.

To turn this around, let me state the issue I percieve and am trying to address. The conjectural Fed fleet, with PFs instead of the Third Way, appears to me to be overpowerful. I perceive that the Fed gatling-armed fighters and heavy fighters are the main source of the overbalance. I am trying to rebalance the Fed-with-PFs fleet by removing those fighters (and any other gatling armed shuttles), perhaps overreachingly.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:21 pm: Edit

WEll, let me put it this way.

In F&E, without the Fed CVA and CVB, the Feds would be very much dead.

How can you balance a race for Y180 by stripping them of all their best weapons for the 12 years prior to that?

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:30 pm: Edit

Well put.

Hm. OK. Given that the intent is to balance the Fed-fleet-with-PFs, is it sufficient to eliminate the Third Way and the F-111 and FB-111, add PFs to the F-111 carrying ships, and replace the A-20s on the SCS with PFs? This is the current conjectural fleet, and I'm uncomfortable with the balance this creates. Specifically, I'm uncomfortable with the SCSA, as I feel that it's just too much to put two fighter squadrons and a PF flotilla on a SCS.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:39 pm: Edit

In a free campaign we might want a way to either limit the availablity of Fed carrier groups or the power of Fed fighters otherwise the Fed player has it all and PFs too.

Perhaps cap the F-14 at the A version until C fighters came along and then only do a C-version of the A-fighter or not build it at all. Something similar would need to happen for the F-15 as well.