Well, given that the heart of my concern is the SCSA, that ship can be modified to carry one fighter squadron and one PF flotilla. I'd enforce, at least, the choice between the F-111 + FB-111 and interceptors + PFs. And there should (as much as I'd dislike it as a Fed player) be some limitation on the production of gatling-armed fighters, to reflect the historical case and keep the Feds from becoming too overpowered.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 11:23 pm: Edit

Randy:

One point you haven't made clear is what sort of economic rules your campaign is running. Two (out of many) possible examples...

1. F&E style economic rules - carriers are expensive to build but once built fighters are replaced for free. You still have to pay to replace PFs lost in combat.

2. All attrition units, fighters, interceptors, and PFs are purchased at economic BPV and all replacements for combat losses have to be purchased - no "free fighter replacements."

The second option reduces the relative cost effectiveness of fighters versus PFs. If you use the second economic option or something similar and combine it with a rule that strictly limits how many gatling phasers the Feds can build per year, I see no reason why the Feds shouldn't be allowed to deploy gatling-armed fighters. They just won't have very many of them.

If you think this still leaves the Feds too strong, you might try handicapping them in some other way, such as reducing the size of their economy. Just because they are the "historical" economic powerhouse, that doesn't mean they have to be in a non-historical, free campaign. Nor is there any reason why a free campaign needs to have all races be economically equal. In my opinion,a "major race" Tholian, while not absolutely invincible, is so strong that they should be economically handicapped in some way unless the Seltorians are in the game. The same may be true for the Hydrans as well.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 11:27 pm: Edit

Alan,

Good points. The free campaign in question is entirely hypothetical, thus the economic rules are undefined. My assumption there would be historical (F&E-style) economics. Quite frankly, the Third Way (as I understand it to be currently defined) takes advantage of the F&E style economics; under the second option, the Third Way is less effective than it was historically.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 05:37 am: Edit

Admittedly, an idea for a free campaign scenario is hard to evaluate on its own. But the main arguments against this idea have been regularly assuming a historical background.

For example,

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

includes the assumption that, for example, the campaign doesn't start with Ints/PFs being available.

If the campaign starts in Y180, or uses a nonhistorical tech progression, who cares how the change would have affected the Federation historically?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 09:18 am: Edit

Terribly sorry, add "If PFs are not available at start..."

By Jonathan Perry (Jonathan_Perry) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 10:13 am: Edit

The perceived problem is the combination of PFs and gatling armed fighters? PF deployment limits, limits on the numbers of SCSs, putting economic costs on the fighters, carrier production limits, etc could all be ways of solving the perceived problem.
Course, I don't think it IS a problem at all.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 12:54 pm: Edit

From the excellent discussion here, I have an observation. The Third Way was developed for the game to keep the Federation competitive without PFs. At pre-PF technology, the Federation has superior carrier groups. At PF technology, PFs are superior to fighters tactically. The Third Way allows the Federation to operate sufficient quantity of fighters to counter the qualitative superiority of PFs.

So far, so good.

If, in a free campaign (setting the start date at the beginning of the GW for discussion's sake), the Federation is going to develop and use PFs instead of the Third Way, the resulting force may be (and I believe there stands a good chance) overly powerful. Hence, my intent to rebalance a PF-using Federation fleet. My recomendations are drastic, yes; and perhaps go too far. But I still remain uncomfortable with adding PFs to the existing Fed carrier groups wholesale.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Ok......just for arguments sake assuming they have PFs.

If the Federation has a single CVA in the operating theater, (very likely), then at most, in any given battle, you would have the following attrition units:

12xF-14
12xA-10
6xThunderbolt PFs.

If we put this in F&E quantities.

12xF-14= 8
12xA-10= 7
6xPF =12
Total = 27

If the Feds went with all fighters then:

12xF-14= 8
12xA-10= 7
12xF-18= 6
6xF-111= 9
Total = 30

The Feds get more potential from going with F-111s rather than PFs. If they go with PFs, then they are under the same restrictions as all other races as to PFTs and PF deployment, and they actually end up with them after most other races.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Then the Fed SCS would be:
12xF-14 = 8
12xF-18 = 6
6xA-20 = 10(?)
Total = 24(?)

Versus the Fed SCSA:
12xF-14 = 8
12xF-18 = 6
6xPF = 12
Total = 26

Is the Fed SCSA too much, then? That's my concern, now that I've drilled it down.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 05:32 pm: Edit

No, not at all. Considering you have to buy all those PFs every time you lose them.

With the Fed SCS, you can still throw in another group of fighters. With the SCSA, that is all you get.

In F&E, the Feds can pick to play with PFs if not sticking to the historical background. They end up about the same as everyone else.

Consider that the rest of the galaxy will be doing something like this:

Lyran:
12xPF=24
12xFighters = 6

Total 30.

Klingon:
6xPF = 12
24xFighter = 12

Total 24. But they will start to use PFs more and more.

ALl races are just about balanced with PFs. The Fed Third Way keeps them at the same level as if they did have PFs. With PFs, there is no need to change anything, just no F-111s.

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 05:47 pm: Edit

Randy,

If your concern truly is drilled down to that one ship, the SCSA, consider the following in a free campaign as strategic balancing factors:

1. Only the Klingons get a BB (unless you're allowing other races to use conjectural designs as well).
2. Only the Kzintis get the SSCS (very late).
3. Only the Hydrans have a carrier that can field a whopping 40 fighters (not counting the fighters from escorts...).
4. The Lyrans get INT/PF WAY before most other races, in some cases by four or more years.

There are others, but as you can see, when you look at the "big picture," the Fed SCSA is just one of the special "toys" they get that are unique, just like some unique things other races get.

I played in a free campaign once several years ago as the Fed, and had one (only one) Fed SCSA group that, because of our free-wheeling campaign rules, was:

SCSA
24 F14C
6 PF (Thunderboomers, no less)
NAC
NAC
DEA
SC+

It was such a fearsome group, but not unkillable. It usually dominated whatever sector it was in...until it met with an Andro DMX+IMP+satellites group...

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 05:57 pm: Edit

Randy, the cost of the F-14s is prohibitive enough. If the Fed wants to build all F-14s carrying carriers, they will have a very small, but very powerful fleet.

I would remove the F-111 if PFs are allowed, but that is all.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 09:46 pm: Edit

OK. Taking my original proposal one point at a time:

---

Quote:

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.

---

---

Quote:

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.

---

---

Quote:

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.

---

---

Quote:

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.

---

---

Quote:

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

---

---

Quote:

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

---

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 10:53 pm: Edit

Well, unless you specifically allow it in a house campaign, you can't put F-14s on just any ship.

They are BIG 12 point fighters. Moreso than their fighter SSD might suggest. Think of the current Day Tomcat in comparison to the size of an modern day Hornet, and you get the idea.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 10:54 pm: Edit

But jolly. Good. The Feds should still have a fun time.

Let us know how they do with the PFs

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 11:00 pm: Edit

Well, Richard indicated that it was a house campaign; that's why his SCSA had 24xF-14s.

And as for myself, I like the Third Way enough I'd use it in preference to Fed PFs. I was simply addressing a hypothetical case of using Fed PFs instead of the Third Way.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 11:02 pm: Edit

Didn't I read that the econ BPV of fighters is 1/2 their combat?

Wouldn't that take the F-14's cost down to single-digit before drones?

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 11:07 pm: Edit

I don't recall that being the case. Fighters are cheap in F&E because you pay the cost for them once, when the carrier is built, and then you get free replacement fighters thereafter. (If I have it right, that is.)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 11:25 pm: Edit

That's F&E. Most attrition units have a smaller econ cost as compared to their combat BPV.

This has a bearing on the discussion. I think you'll find 1/2 combat is correct, though I couldn't tell you the rule number (not from work anyway).

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 03:20 am: Edit

R2.F refers to economic/production difficulties as being the reason F-14s were limited to CVAs, not physical inability to be carried on other ships.

R2.F1 points out that the Federation pre-war plans were for an all-F-14 force. If those were the plans, at least the pre-war designs (CVL, CVE, FFE) would have been made with the F-14's requirements in mind. (And the CVS technical difficulties are explicitly "presumed", and we have no way of knowing on the war classes.)

Which brings me back to my previous point. It's hard to meaningfully criticize a rule for use in "free campaigns" without any specifics on how the campaign will work -- like, say, the economic system -- much less such smaller matters like, "Are there limits on F-14 production/deployment?"

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 03:25 am: Edit

I agree that there should be, especially if the Feds are building PFs.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 11:37 am: Edit

Which brings us back to my original list of recommendations. If, in a free campaign (assuming F&E economics for simplicity's sake) the Federation is going to build INT/PF instead of developing the Third Way, simply adding PFs to the existing Fed fleet has the potential to make the Feds overpowering. So, what would be a reasonable set of limitations to place on the Feds if they are going to build INT/PF under such conditions?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 03:51 pm: Edit

I think the elimination of the F-111 and all variants is a big point, perhaps the only thing you need to do.

We would want to limit F-14/15 production anyway, but curtail it further if they choose PFs. Or if F-14/15 production is unlimited with Third Way, it is limited if they choose PFs.

Really that's about it. Nothing more should be needed.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 04:53 pm: Edit

I think you're right. I'd want to curb the carried group on the SCSA as well, limiting it to one fighter squadron and one PF flotilla, like everybody else. The (assumed) F-14 squadron would be edge enough.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Agreed.

No special fighter squadron bennies above the deal everyone else gets.

The Feds would be like everyone else and should be treated like everyone else.