John, in that case you need to upgrade their CVA to the firepower of the other races CVA and change the escorts to not have the FCR factors (and change the lyran escorts to loose compot like all others, and .....)

the races are different and you can't just throw one thing away without getting into a significant downward spiral

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 06:51 pm: Edit

David L is right.

You can't just throw all those things out and expect the Feds to still be competetive, unless you changed EVERYONE else as well.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Fair point in the general case. I went overboard.

I'll stand by the specific example.

The Fed fighter squadron advantage seems directly related to the Third Way and therefore ought to be dumped if they choose to build PF's.

The Fed CVA still has the F-14, arguably a significant combat edge, which counterbalances the lack of shipboard firepower. The feds also make up DF firepower losses when they use the DE/DER who, unlike most other race escorts, still retain some heavy weapon firepower. Losing the squadron advantage shouldn't leave them out in the cold or uncompetetive.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Well, the option is PFs or Third Way. My impression is that adding PFs to the existing Fed fighter deployment, without the Third Way, may still be unbalanced. If a free campaign allows greater than the historical deployment of F-14/15/16, the likelihood increases. (Of course, there's an argument that the Third Way is unbalancing under similar conditions - the gatling-armed fighters are powerful units in and of themselves.)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 02:35 am: Edit

...then we're agreed to start with and more cutting may be needed.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 03:49 am: Edit

Randy, have you ever played with Feds that have PFs instead of F-111s?

They play much differently. The drone throw weight is much reduced, and the PFs draw fire from the ships more often, becuase that many overloaded photons moving that fast is dangerous.

F-16s are based on planets only.

F-14s are carried on the CVA, DVL. SCS, BCV, BCS. That's really it. F-15s are on the CVS and the BB.

You can't just buy a NVS and stick a squadron of F-14s or F-15s on it. Just doesn't work that way.

The cost of the F-14s/15s will be your balance factor. For every one of them you buy, your opponent can buy almost 2 of their fighters. Add in drone costs, and the F-14/15 become much more expensive than their counterparts.

There is no reason to mess with the Feds at all, other than removing F-111s and adding PFs.

Of course, I forget that this is for a house rule campaign, so you can really do anything you want.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 03:55 am: Edit

John, you are using reverse logic there.

The Third way was developed FOR THE SOLE REASON of countering the Coalition's PF attrition advantage without resorting to the use of PFs themselves, which the Feds found....immoral, for lack of a better word.

Not pursuing the Third Way does not mean they would suddenly stop producing the BEST standard fighter in known space. It simply means that they would not develop the F-111 and they would not develop the Command and Control abilites to allow more than three groups of attrition units into a battle.

There is not an argument that the Third way is unbalancing. The numbers speak for themselves. They are a break even. PFs, or an extra group of fighters ends up to be just about the same thing.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Cfant,

When did I say that the Fed should/would stop producing any fighter besides the F-111?

I suggested production caps for the F-14/15 and eliminating the fleet-level extra fighter squadron advantage.

Now you may argue that the caps and the squadron loss are unnecessarily limiting, but you'd have to defend the idea that swapping Fed PFs for the F-111 line of fighters/bombers is an even trade.

If PFs are such an advantage, then it seems likley that the Feds get a net plus from the change if all they have to drop is the F-111. So they need to shed a little more. First on the chopping block is the fighter squadron advantage, which seems to my mind to be there to give the Feds ATU partiy, just as the Lyran PF advantage is.

In a free campaign, I'd be willing to stop there, but if the Fed are still proven to have an advantage then limits on F-14/15 production come to center stage.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 03:08 pm: Edit

John,

I made that suggestion initially, but I'm now convinced, under F&E economics and production limitations, that the limited production of gatling armed fighters are critical to Federation success in the years before PFs. For balance, it is critical that the production of them be limited, especially in a free campaign.

What I'm suggesting now amounts to formalizing the choice between the F-111/FB-111 + Third Way and INT/PFs. This has the effect of associating the F-111/FB-111 with the Third Way (which I've always assumed), which is properly 'just' a Command and Control methodology (though I would assume some improved C3I technology as well).

So, if the Fed player in a campaign chooses to (eventually ) develop INT/PF, then no F-111/FB-111 and no Third Way (fourth attrition squadron). In either case (Third Way or INT/PF), F-14/15/16 production needs to be limited in some way, either by expense of cost, providing an economic incentive to limit the numbers, or some artificial limit, implemented according to the economic system in use. And trust me, as a Fed player, I'm inclined to produce as many F-14/15 squadrons as I can manage, because they really are that good. (Point of comparison: The F-15 has exactly twice the firepower of the F-18, prior to the C-refits.)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 03:18 pm: Edit

...so the only real difference between our points of view is that I'm open to the idea of not limiting production of Fed P-G fighters and you're dead-set on limits.

I can deal.

As a quibble, I don't think the F-16 is a big deal up to and including the C-version. it just doesn't carry the drones to be an unbalancing threat despite the gat. That's why I limited myself to F-14/15.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Randy, John:

Yes, the 4th squadron of the Third-Way should go away if PFs are used.

As for F-14,F-15,F-16 limits you are talking about....

Isn't the expense enough of a limit?

You can only build one CVA per year. On top of that, you can only buld three other carriers plus 2 escort carriers.

Now, from an SFB, point of view......this cost the following.

Y171-172-173

CVA: 187 (economic cost)+ 12xF-14:66 +12xA-10:60. Total for carrier: 313 (plus drone costs)

CVB: 156 + 12xF-15:72. Total for carrier: 228

CVS: 156 + 12xF-18:60. Total for carrier: 216

The NVS and NVL become are less, etc.

Now, in F&E the Feds get 2xCVBs at the above cost basically, but then after those first 2xCVB then have to pay a surcharge for their F-15s. Essentially, increase the cost of the F-15s by 33%, so the cost of an F-15 squadron would be about 95 EP, or the cost of a destroyer.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 03:35 pm: Edit

Cfant,

The costs might well be enough. Especially when you throw in escorts.

I don't have a strong opinion on production limits on F-14/15's.

I do feel strongly that the F-111 line and the extra squadron's gotta go.

Seems like production limits on the P-G fighters is the big sticking point. We might want to refine our yes or no arguments.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 03:46 pm: Edit

As I understand it, the F&E production limits on F-14/15 are purely economic cost. If you are willing to pay the cost, you can build as many as you like, but the cost gets progressively higher. (Which brings the question of why the gatling-and-Type-III armed F-111 is less limited in numbers; though I might be missing something, and they are actually similarly limited.)

As for the F-111s and the Third Way 'going away' if PFs are built, that's the way it already works, as I understand it.

We may have hit upon the crux of the matter - there are no rules clearly defining what the Federation gives up in order to build the conjectural PFs; it's been left to the local player group to work out. I was attempting to codify a set of suggestions (most of which are inapropriate, I now understand) to fill that gap.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 04:22 pm: Edit

We have a good idea amongst ourselves at this point.

We're down to one debate point realy: whether to cap fed production of P-G fighters.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 06:29 pm: Edit

Randy, there are....shall we say "artifical" limits on how many F-14s/F-15s. There is no limit other than cost on arming planetary defenses with F-16s.

Theses limits are:

1xCVA per year (F-14s) PLUS
3xStrike Carriers per year (CVS(F-18),CVB(F-15),BCV(F-14))
1xDNL per year (max one DVL in service at any time) (F-14s)

Three Federation planets may have F-15 squadrons.
Three Federation Starbases may have F-14 squadrons.

So, the absolute maximum number of F-14s/F-15s that can be newly produced (once you build a type of squadron, there are always enough to send replacements for that squadron) in a single year for ships is:

Assuming you always build the best carriers you can, it will be per year CVA,1xBCV,2xCVB. The DVL rules are not in F&E yet, but we can assume it will take the place of a stike carrier the one turn it is built.

F-14: 2xSquadrons (1xCVA,1xBCV or a DVL)
F-15: 2xSquadrons (2xCVB)

Taking into account that these fighters are expensive and that the ships are rather pricy too, I think the limits set already are quite adequate.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Now, after the DVL is built, you will only add 1!! squadron of F-14s per year. After the BCV is buildable (182?) then you get a whopping 2xF-14 squadrons per year.

F-15s are a little more available, you can build up to 3 CVBs per year, at a cost of 95 EP per squadron.

So, prior to 182 (when the BCV is built) you get 1xF-14 squadron and up to 3xF-15 squadrons per year.

That really aint that bad, considering the costs involved.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 06:59 pm: Edit

Cfant,

In a player campaign, outside the framework of F&E, would the Feds still be balanced if the player had pretty much the run of the MSC and could build what he wanted in the quantity he wanted?

If not, what limits might we set?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 07:14 pm: Edit

The money sets the limit.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 07:41 pm: Edit

Then we should be good to go.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 09:04 pm: Edit

if a campaign is set so a player just pays BPV (or EPV) for anything they want from the MSC no race will produce a reasonable fleet.

trying to say that the feds will produce an unreasonable fleet without looking at what their opponent's will be producing is being very shortsighted (for example, the klingons will produce no D6/D7/F5/E4 ships except possibly a few varients, they will build D5's for battle and C7/C8/B-10's as command ships)

if you are setting up a campaign then you need to decide what your overall production rules are going to be and then sit down and try to abuse them.

yes if every fed carrier is flying F-14's then the fed carriers will be terrors, but there are a lot of other ways to break the game.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 09:46 pm: Edit

If every Fed carrier is flying F-14's (and/or F-15's), and the campaign is set up with rerasonable economic rules (or assuming F&E economics), then the Fed will pay dearly, by prioritizing 'superfighters' over other construction. Hope the Fed is a wizard at carrier operations... (I'd probably try at least once, myself.)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 09:54 pm: Edit

David,

Your point is well-taken, but really the focus of this topic is how to produce a reasonably balanced (or unbalanced in the same manner as everyone else) Fed fleet when the Feds go with PFs instead of the Third Way. I think we've carved a decent set of balances given that the results haven't been playtested.

To delve much deeper we have to write the entire set of campaign rules. But if we assume that the player is free to buy whatever huls he likes but is limited to historical fighter choices, we should be in the ballpark. We're not gutting the Feds, but we are making en effort to counterbalance the advantages that PFs give them.

We would need to know more about the campaign setting and rules to be any more sure that the Feds are balanced.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Hmmm, I think you (JohnT) missed a point, regardless of how you set up a campaign, there is really no way to keep a player running balanced fleets...after all, he still has the option to combine fleets together to produce an 'unbalanced' battleforce (once damage starts reducing the initial 'balanced' fleets).

As for whether a Fed with PFs but without F111s/Third Way is equal to each other, the only way would be to run the both campaigns (one with PFs and one with F111s) and see which has a stronger Fed position...

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 12:43 am: Edit

There are already examples of technology which can be built only in limited numbers (Stasis Field Generator, Webcaster, SWAC, Cloaked Decoy, etc.) under applicable rules. One of the decisions that the designer of any free campaign will have to make is which of these restrictions will apply to his campaign. The campaign could set a limit on the total number of gatling phasers the Feds are able to produce in one year (the Feds have figured out the technology, but unlike the Hydrans, have not been able to mass produce it). This finite number of gatlings would have to suffice for both fighters and escorts (and capital ships such as heavy carriers or space control ships). If the Feds want to deploy fighter squadrons in excess of their ability to build gatling phasers, they would build F-18s for the remainder.

Note that in a free campaign the economic rules might be very different from F&E. Without free fighter replacements, the Feds would have to use part of their gatling phaser production just to replace F-14s/F-15s lost in combat to keep existing squadrons at full strength.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 12:44 am: Edit

keep the historic limits on what fighters go on what carriers and then let your campaign rules limit the carrier construction schedule.

if you don't have any limits on how many of each ship can be built then you are going to be broken anyway 3rd way or PF's (and if fighter production is really unlimited then the 3rd way will probably be more broken then with PF's, all your worries about the feds having to many good fighters apply either way)