Archive through April 19, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
Module J3: Back in the Cockpit:
Archive through April 19, 2004
Andy-
Thank you, somehow I had missed that discussion! (Pity, It sounds like something I would have contributed to!)
I was thinking of a scenario for a fighter squadron CO's perspective on an ongoing campaign...much like the script of your mega fighter campaign with some pretty significant differences.
#1 if the fighter squadron performance is "average" then the script of the campaign /historical results unchanged. (if better than normal performance time table advances, target captured earlier. if worse than normal performance offensive defeated enemy planet/base/PDU survives.)
#2 for the solitare scenario player has no control over or effects the performance of any unit except his fighter squadron (or that portion that actually survives.)
#3 this proposal intended to fit into the space norally assigned for a scenario (1 page or so) in a module such as J3...not a major rules section of its own.
The real decisions would be made in the strike preparation, not tactically, the results of the strike would be applying the damage received and calculating the effects of the strike (sort of a BDA...Bomb Damage Assessment) to determine the start point for the next strike.
sort of a perspective thing like Joseph Heller's novel "Catch 22" for a bomber group in an extended campaign...with "Victory" measured by how well the player ended up applied to a set scale.
Just off the top of my head, what if we assumed 12 strikes by fighters (say F4's) with 2 standard drones...if the 12 strikes were unopposed, then the potential possible damage points the player could inflict on the "target" would be (2*12)*12=3,456 possible damage points...a "perfect score".
the worst possible score would be calculated as no points from delivering damage to the target AND subtracting damage points received against the fighters of the fighter squadron...say you start with 12 fighters, 1 spare, and you receive 1 NEW fighter after each round of combat completed...that means a maximum of 24 fighters (13 at start, 1 for each of the 11 rounds completed before the final mission, game over at the completion of #12 which is before the spare fighter is received for completing mission #12).
we will have to index a chart for net points to assign victory status to, and a table describing the CO's rating at the end of the series of strikes.
The final "Victory chart" would therfore have to account for a range of possible scores from 3,456 to a possible negative score of the 24 fighters destroyed during 12 strikes.
Atleast the squadron CO won't have to worry about being shot for negligence! he will have died with the fighters before the end of the scenario.
Is this still an active idea, or has it fallen off the radar?
Don Sample:
Fell off the Radar...Real World concerns have a habit of creeping into Gaming time!
Spent the last 2 hours re-reading posts on this thread.
Another proposal (that I hope hasn't already been made previously!)
F-11A Space superiority Fighter
At the time the Federation decided to begin the design process for the CVA class ships, it was realized that the F-4, F-8 and A-6 types would not be sufficient, as all three designs were already technically obsolete.
At the same time, there was no guarantee that the Phaser Gatling weapons systems would ever become deployable or even practical to use. (leaving asside the question of Hydran Involvement in the R&D process of Fighter and ship Gatlings).
One theory of Federation Development history of carrier fighters posits that the F-11A was the next logical step, and not only was far along in the process, but that an actual prototype had been built and low scale production had begun at the time that the Hydrans launched their expedition to reach the Federation in the early General war years.
Once the Federation received the data and examples of Gatling technology aboard the one Hydran Destroyer that infact did get to Federation space, it was soon realized just how effective fighters with gatling phaser technology would become. In short order, the F-11A program was suspended, and a crash program to update the base F-11A fighter frame with gatling technology resulted in the excellent F-14 design.
Systems wise, the only real difference between the F-11A and the F-14 is the Phaser armament, the F-11A having 2 Phaser 3's (just as in the F-18).
In all other respects, the F-11A was identical to the F-14. the use of the Phaser 3's instead of the Phaser gatling resulted in a slight discount in BPV.
Year in service date, had the Federation gone ahead with the program, would have been Fall 172.
The F-11B is similar to the F-11A, with the exception that it is a 2 seat fighter type.
There was a design proposal for a fighter bomber type for use on Planets and PDU's...at this time, it is not known if the program was related to the Fed 111 in anyway.
Pro's:
while this is intended as a never(or seldom) built fighter type available during the early General war, it would be an option for players who want to experiment with "No Fed Gatling" technolgy without forcing the Fed player to continue using F-4 and F-8 fighters (or F-18's when available) to do without the F-14's that they would normally have available.
In Star Fleet Battles, it would allow players to have the F-14's ability to use Dog fight, standard and Multiple warhead drones without the Phaser Gatling feature.
In a whatif scenario, players could use the F-11A from year 172 to take advantage of the drone ability instead of having to wait until the YIS 177 date of the F-14.
Without a gatling, the BPV of the F-11A would be 1 point less than the F-14...since it was some 90% identical to the F-14.
Con's:
No gatlings. 
What's the point? You are saving 12 BPV for fighters that are half as effective as the F-14.(Direct fire and drone defense wise).
Not worth it.
Also, check your dates again, F-14 is available in 171.
The key factor here is that the Phaser Gatlings were not available...take your pick, either the Federation did not get the Key design break through from inhouse R&D or the Hydrans failed to give it to the Federation.
Either way - NO GATLINGS!
That means No F-14 is available (or any other Phaser Gatling equipped fighters such as F15 or F16's).
To put it another way, If Phaser Gatling technology was easy to acquire, all races could have it and it would be widely available...since both the history and the R section rules indicate that Phaser Gatling Technology is not widely available, it would appear that there is some key element in the development that not all races are able to derive at the same time.
As far as the YIS date, I chose to delay the introduction somewhat intentionally. Since (as Chris correctly implied) Phaser Gatling equipped fighters are superior to non phaser Gatling equipped fighters, the Federation would (IMO) delay the introduction so as to give the R&D department every possible chance to get "the breakthrough" needed to have a functioning Phaser Gatling in service. If anything, the F-11A could be available earlier, even prior to the date the F-14 historically was available...This probably should be a modification to the proposal.
To be honest, Chris appears to have made his comment using the assumption that the F-11 proposal is concurrent with phaser gatlings.
Not a correct assumption, its a substitute to use instead of Gatling equipped F-14's.
The point, Chris, is just what the proposal indicated...
No Gatlings, means just that, No Gatlings.
Given the investment in CVA and assorted escorts, the Federation should (IMO) have a back up design available incase the Phaser Gatling technology failed to "pan out"...in SFB there are numerous examples of things that for whatever reason, just didnt work out, including (I think) Super Intelligent Computers, the Positron Flywheel, BHAG's, just to mention a few examples.
"Betting the farm" on untested and unknown technology (such as Phaser Gatlings were until proven effective) is reckless and unreasonable given that the defense of the Federation rests on the ability of Star Fleet to have functioning weapons.
Another modification to the proposal, (assuming it was Chris' intent) could be that the F-11 was infact available for service prior to year 171...and was replaced when the F14 became available...
Have to think about that last one...I suppose it would be possible but it wouldnt have been available much earlier than year 171... probably no more than 6 months or a year...In real life a navy might pursue that route depending on how bad the fighters being replaced were (in this case F4's or F8's) but game wise (particularly in F&E) I don't beleive its worth the bother...in SFB, it might be...depends on how desperate one is to have a superior fighter available in year 170 would be!
OOPS!
I see what Chris was refering to now...YIS date for F14 = 171...not Year 177...(or 172) dang.
(I hate it when Chris is right!)
Ok! Good catch!
Sorry.
I had always thought the F-18 was the backup fighter design for the F-14.
Jeff: Y177 does matter to the proposal. That is when the F-14 gets the special rails.
Now that is a lot of backstory to let the Feds operate a clone of the Z-Y or TAAS. The F-14 really does not stand out until F-14B of Y183 with the 4 special rails, if one discounts the gatling. Admittedly, the Fed will still have the YIS advantage of getting quality fighters in service earlier.
2 points per fighter is a noticeable savings and could distort force selection. The A-11 wins out if conducting drone bombardment as part of a base assault. The phaser fire tends not to be needed. On the other side, both the F-18B and proposed A-11 (Z-Y) would have the same BPV and speed but the A-11 would have 2 more damage. This creates a window when the F-18 will not be selected.
Edit: Misread chaff pod line on F-18B
The F-18s is a fine P3 armed fighter.
Putting an inferior fighter in for a fighter that is already there is a waste. If you do not want to use Gatlings.....jeez, I cannot fathom this.....then you just make all Fed fighters the F-18 and there ya go.
Assuming that the F-11 is just an F-14 with 2xP-3 instead of 1xP-G, then it does have one absolutely huge advantage over the F-18: 2 more damage points.
Do note that I don't think an F-11 is necessary. If you want an F-14 with 2xP-3 instead of 1xP-G, then say "in this alternative, there are no P-Gs, therefore all Fed fighters that have a P-G instead have 2xP-3."
But an F-14 with 2xP-3 is still much more useful and valuable than an F-18.
The other advantage of the F-14 over the F-18 is that the F-14 (like the F-15, Z-Y and TAAS) can launch *2* type I drones per turn, the F-18 cannot.
Right, the F-14 is the best fighter in the game. But DO what Mike said, just say it only has 2 P-3s and drop the BPV by 1 if you want to. Don't use up space for an F-14 look alike.
Chris: Dropping it to 2 P-3s makes it identical to the Z-Y which means the BPV drops by 2. At least before the 4 special rail model occurs.
Depending on time period I would argue the F-15 is a better fighter than the F-14. It can control 4 drones vice the F-14's 2 (regardless of time period) which is significant in a heavy drone environment. Until the late war period and C refits the F-15 has more drones to launch, thus has a longer time on station. It is arguable, given the deployment limits for special drones, if the special rails on the F-14 really give it much advantage until the C refits - certainly the F-14B (2 special rails) can't make much use of them (9 III drones per squadron).
I agree late war, fully refitted F-14's are the best - but early war that is not the case.
Stingers are in their own category - the ability of a stinger squadron to do 50+ damage at range 10 can't be beaten by any other fighter - and there is FAR more of them...
Even if there are no type-III drones, the special rails are still useful: just put standard type-I drones on it. Sure, you go through your reserves faster, but then, the fighters aren't going to last long anyway.
However, except for the dubious superiority of the type-III drone, the F-15 is better in every way. It can control more drones; it has better fire control; it carries more drones for most versions (and never carries less); and, once the F-14A is introduced, it is even cheaper!
I fail to see the "confusion" on the issue.
A comparison,
F18C: cost=12 YIS=183
Spd 15 2xP3FA drones=4xI's dmg=10 2 spcl rails.
F14C: cost=16 YIS 190
Spd 15 1xPG drones=4xI's dmg=12 4 spcl rails.
and assuming the F11 gets the same special rails after year 177.
F11C: cost=14?(proposal was for 15) YIS?190?
Spd 15 2xP3FA drones=4xI's dmg=12 4 spcl rails.
Early types comparison,
F18: cost=8 YIS=173
Spd 13 2xP3FA drones=2xI's 2xVI dmg=10.
F14: cost=11 YIS 171
Spd 15 1xPG drones=2xI's 2xVI dmg=12.
F11A: cost=9? (proposal was for 10)YIS?=170-172?
Spd 15 2xP3FA drones=2xI's 2xVI dmg=12.
If the F11D were built...it would have:
Cost=15 (proposal was for 16) YIS=?195?
Spd 15 1PG drones 4xI's dmg=12 4 spcl rails and 2xVI's.
(there is not a 'D' variant for F18's...)
a quick cost/benefit analysis indicates that the F11 is faster (by about 15%) than the original model F18 and costs about 13% more than the F18 while taking more than 20% more damge to destroy than the F18...(12 damage points vs 10).
I guess the question comes down to, is 13% more cost worth a 15% increase in speed, 20% more damage resistant with the same phaser and drone armament worth it?
There is no need for a F-14/15 replacement anywhere except Stellar Shadows.
I think it is a valid proposal. If it doesn't run in J3 (if J3 is ever made) It should definately go in SSJ#3.
I think the concept behind it could be a decent background article in either CL or SSJ, which describes how Federation fighters would likely have developed without P-Gs. Hopefully, it would involve more than just "replace all fighter based P-G with 2xP-3", but it is a good idea worth developing.
But I still think that if a fighter is an F-14 with 2xP-3 instead of 1xP-G, then it is an "F-14 with 2xP-3 instead of 1xP-G", not an "F-11".
Richard Wells wrote:
"The A-11 wins out if conducting drone bombardment as part of a base assault. The phaser fire tends not to be needed. On the other side, both the F-18B and proposed A-11 (Z-Y) would have the same BPV and speed but the A-11 would have 2 more damage. This creates a window when the F-18 will not be selected."
That is a comparison that I hadnt considered...so here is A-10 vs A-11 vs A-11D vs F-18B line up:
speed: 10 - 15 - 15 - 15
Phaser:1xP3FA- 2xP3FA - 2xP3FA - 2xP3FA
drones: 2 x I- 2 x I - 4 x I - 2xI
....... 2 x VI-2 x VI - 2 x VI - 2 x VI
Special: NA - NA - 4 rails- NA
... 1 PhotonFA- NA. - NA. - NA
... 1 x P3RA - NA. - NA. - NA
Damage: 16 - 12 - 12 - 10
BPV: 10 - 9 - 15 - 9
YIS: 171 - 170? - 195? - 177
From just a Drone capacity POV the A11C or A11D would seem superior to either of the other choices listed, the A10 or the F18B.
OK, let's back up a bit.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that an F-14, with its P-G replaced with 2xP-3, is not better than an F-18. At any point in time.
What people are arguing (outside the side discussions, e.g. F-14 v F-15), is whether a brand new fighter needs to be created for a conjectural setting where the Federation doesn't have gatling phasers. Especially when its only difference with an existing fighter is the replacement of the phaser armament.
I completely agree that, if the Feds did not have gatling phasers, they still would have made the F-14 with 2xP-3 instead of the gatling. But, it still would have been the "F-14", not something else.
Or, put another way, the Feds did not design two near identical fighters where the only difference was the phaser armament. They designed a single fighter (the F-14) that could use either phaser armament, then waited until further testing was completed to make the selection.
I agree, a F-14 without gatlings is an F-14 not a F-11.
I follow the concept...but for ease of communications there needs to be more than
"a F-14 without gatlings is an F-14 not a F-11"...line.
Adding another letter to the F14X terminology (IMO) is misleading to the extent that one thing consistant with characteristics of F14's (aside from its speed) is the Phaser gatling...its like saying a McDonalds Big Mac is like the BurgerKing Big King burger without the special sauce...ie it seems to violate the basic design of Big Mac's! 
A B17 Bomber with extra guns and armor was not a new model B17...it was called a B40.
A B18 Medium Bomber with New (more Powerful) engines was not a B18-B C or D it was a B22.
A P36 (with its Radial Engine) re-engined did not result in a new model P36...it was a P40.
A P35 with a new engine and wing design was not a P35...it was a P47. (actually a P43..the P47 came later!)
A B36 with redesigned wings and jet engines was not a new model B36...it was a B50 (IIRC...might have been the B60...have to look that one up!) but it still lost out in competition to the B52.
Now there are examples the other way the British changed the Spitfire a lot, but kept the name (generally...the Seafire being the most notable exception.)
My point is, if you want to address the concept of a gatlingless F14...it needs to be more descriptive than "a F-14 without gatlings is an F-14 not a F-11" thingee.
OT: Mike West wrote:
Quote:However, except for the dubious superiority of the type-III drone, the F-15 is better in every way.
A laundry list of the things fighters with special rails can do that the F-15 cannot:
i) Drone bombard a base from outside range 35 using tame boar targetting. In fact an F-14 squadron fully loaded up is an effective drone bombardment ship.
ii) VERY high launch rates available for the F-14 if you can get the III drones on those special rails. No other (piloted single space) fighter in the game can launch 4 drones in one turn. (I admit the remote control rules in J2 almost completely remove this benefit - one reason I don't like the remote control rules).
iii) The ability to launch MW/starfish drones at long range followed by standard explosives is clearly an advantage when engaging other fighter squadrons.
Combine i-iii and a squadron of F-14's makes a much more effective base buster (which might have its own defending squadron) than a squadron of F-15's.
Of course if all you want to do is launch a few explosive drones at a (relatively) close range enemy then the F-15 is your fighter of choice (it's cheaper). But if you want flexibility then the F-14 is a better option.
BTW: A squadron of F-14D's vs an equivalent BPV of Stinger-II's (almost double the number) - who would win?