Jeff, the Fed did not enter a state of economic exhaustion until Y183.

By 183 the F-18C,F-14B,F-15C are all available. These fighters are all very survivable becuase they throw drones farr beyond the effective range of direct fire weapons, and the Phasers on these fighters keep them alive against other drones.

The F-16 is only 7 BPV and far more worth the money than a fighter that is actually designed to die.

By Patrick McDowell (Pmac) on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 10:29 pm: Edit

C Fant
The ISC is only 60% represented by the current map. An overlay/extention would add the rest.
If SVC was adding some overlays in for other areas, this is just as viable as they are for use.
We use the ISC as a Player Race all the time in F&E.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 12:04 am: Edit

Duplicate post

sorry.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 12:09 am: Edit

Chris-

Not every one waits until a bad situation occurs to plan for it...it is called being pro-active.

It may have escaped your notice, but there are those people who anticipate situations and submit plans to deal with such conditions in advance of them.

Another name for it is "worst case scenario" ... before the Federation recaptured the territory captured by the Coalition, there was no guarantee, no promises written in stone, no contract that promised the Federation would infact be able to restore the lost territory.

At the Coalition "High Water Mark" the responsible position would be to base the contingency planning on a series of assumptions...one of which could have been the loss of the home worlds.

If the Fed economy had been reduced to 1/3 of the on map provinces and worlds outside of the capital hex and 3 (or 4) starbases, the Federation could not afford to repair the surviving ships of the fleet, build the max number of ships available in the starbases, fund the construction of the off map shipyard and buy the top of the line fighters you mentioned.

For a historical example, think Germany 1944 - 45. not able to get all of the strategic materials needed for war production so substitutions had to be made. Tank Destroyers(tank Chasis and fixed mounted guns, no turret) instead of the late model Panthers or Tigers, wooden propellers instead of aluminium, unable to repair ships so they are beached and used as static defenses...old men and young boys mobilized into adhoc units to throw into the battle as there are no other reserves available.

For you to pretend that an unlimited budget always exists so the Federation would "only buy the best equipment" shows a complete disconnect with real life conditions...

Some times the best equipment is just not available at the time its needed.

For another Real world Example, look at the emergency mobilization the US exercised post Pearl Harbor, 1941 to mid 1942...full wartime production hadnt yet been acheived so the units activated got WW1 helmets, rifles and French 75MM field guns that had been in storage since 1918...and there was demand for more since the US had diverted a portion of the war stocks plus 50 4 stack destroyers to the British after Dunkirk and the Fall of France in 1940.

In short, I suggest that your "looking at the world thru rose colored glasses" approach is wrong to say the least.

Specifically, the F-17 is not a fighter designed to die...its the best that can be bought with the limited budgets available to a Federation on the defensive engaged in a long war and not able to afford all the nifty gadgets that the Full Federation with 221+ per turn EP budget could buy.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 01:18 am: Edit

R&D costs more than building existing fighters.

Patrick, the ISC "Offmap area"? Is that what you are saying you want a map of?

I think for Ecowar or something further in the future than that, a map of each races "offmap" area would be kinda cool, but we already know what planets are out there and how many provinces it is, so what would it really add?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 09:01 am: Edit

Hmmm...rather than the F17, I'd almost like to see an A-F7. That is, an F7 with the "advanced shuttlecraft" improvements seen in standard shuttlecraft in Y180. Speed 10, Damage 10, BPV 5, and 2 chaff packs; all else as the basic F7. Heck, put fast packs on the thing, and it's almost worthwhile. And upgrade it to an A-F7C, with type-Is replacing the type-VIs, and the little bugger would be a darned useful casual fighter.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 10:35 am: Edit

Jessica-

To be honest, I do like the F-7. It has features that appeal to me.

The A-F7 that you propose would exactly fit into the "niche" the F-17 is intended for.

Actually, with the 360 degree Phasers, the A-F7 would be superior to the proposed F-17(atleast in fighter vs ship combat).

Are you making this an official proposal?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 10:38 am: Edit

Chris-

The R&D for the F-17 had already been paid...back in year 170-171. The proposal is to put the design into production by year 180...quite a bit different from your comment.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 12:23 pm: Edit

Why would they research a crap fighter whren they had 3 superb and one quite good fighter in 171?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 07:11 pm: Edit

Cfant,

I suppose for the same reason that a lot of "crap" things go through full R&D cycles: in peacetime, because of a flawed concept that finds itself developing a life of its own due to investment; in wartime, because almost any idea is seized upon as a possible way to win the war.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 08:53 am: Edit

Cfant,

There is the need to "build a better mouse trap, and the world will beat a path to your door".

If the Federation could produce a fighter design equal or superior to the best the competition could build at half the cost of the competitions designs...the money saved could be used to buy other weapons that could be used to win the war.

Motivation enough to continue research.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:34 am: Edit

But the comparison is like that of an M1-A1 to an WWII vintage M3 Stuart.

You would not tell someone to research the M3 if you had the M1. You would tell someone to research the Stryker.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Chris...sometimes your enthusiasm to "support" your contention leads you to absurd and inappropriate comparisions...

The Stuart was a 1930's tank design without real war experience being used as part of the process...the M1-A1 had the benefit of WW2 Korea and Vietnam plus direct access to the theater where the M1-A1 was intended to be used (i.e. Western Europe). In case you can't do the math...thats a 30 year gap in the development process between your 2 examples.

In contrast, the Federation designed and deployed most of their fighters between164 to 174...just a 10 year window of opportunity. (this would include the F-4, F8, F14, F15, F16, and F18 types. and (this is (Ithink) a reasonable assumption) if the F-17 was developed after the F14/F15 but prior to the F18...the gap would be at most a year and possibly concurrent with the F18)

Since you (again) missed the point, the proposed F17 design was intended originally as a low cost attrition fighter that, coincidently, had its R&D process in the middle of the period, after the earliest fighters listed (the F4 and F8) and prior to the YIS date of the F18.

Jessica's Idea is an even better illustration of how badly out of touch you are with the history and development of Federation Fighters.

An Advanced F-7 (AF-7) could not have even occured until the advent of the advanced Admin Shuttle design published in J2.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 01:48 pm: Edit

Of course, the Advanced F-7 could not have even occured until the advent of the F-7 published in J2.

That is one of the biggest oversightes done in J2. They introduced advanced versions of all previously published shuttles, and added a bunch of new shuttles. But they completely forgot to put in the advanced versions of the new shuttles.

Oh well.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 04:06 pm: Edit

Mike West,

SFB (and to the same extent, F&E) are 'works in progress'.

The Steves have constructed a game system around fictional back ground that is, ingeneral, very consistant and comprehensive.

They have, to an extent, mannaged it by only making incremental changes (well, except for that one supplement with the x-ships.. and evaluating the results of the changes.

I view J2 as another step in the process...and if the Steves see fit to include advanced versions of the new shuttles in J3, I for one would take it in stride.

But, to be honest, I think your "oversight" comment is not strickly appropriate. SFB is not a finished product and for the forseeable future, new rules will continue to be added.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 06:01 pm: Edit

Jeff, the logic makes sense to me.

You are being obtuse.

I am saying that the Fed already have the advanced, well rounded and excellent fighters. There is no need (at the time these fighters were developed) to go back and create a cheap, crappy fighter.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 10:19 am: Edit

Chris,

Again you respond with an insult/name calling attack.

Very childish.

But since you seem to feel your opinion is unassailable, lets take a look at it, shall we?

The Cfant doctrine:

The Federation would not build "a cheap, crappy fighter." In particular, the application of the 'Cfant doctrine' is (to paraphrase) "the F-17 would not have been built since the Federation has available the F14, F15, F16 and F18 fighters".

Now, if Cfant is correct, then the doctrine will ALWAYS be correct in each application.

However, the Federation built the F-18 (IIRC something like 80% of all fighters built during the General War were infact F-18's) in spite of the availablility of superior fighters of the F14, F15 types.

Thus the Cfant doctrine is disproved.

Infact, if the Cfant Doctrine were correct, then ideally, the federation would ONLY build the best fighters of one design as the cfant doctrine states, there is no need to go back and build "Cheap Crappy Fighters".

Cfants error is his complete disregard of History . Gatling armed fighters while clearly superior to other fighters are limited production. combat losses quickly outpaced the production of F14's and F15's leaving the federation needing a "Cheap, crappy fighter" like the F18 to fill the fighter squadrons actually fighting the war.

The F17 (and the AF7) are intended for a war of attrition that the Federation never really got in to, according to the history. Its like insurance, most people pay to have and hope they never have to use it.

The Attrition fighters were ready if needed.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:02 am: Edit

Again, you fail to see past your new ideas.

If you look at my posts, you will see that I included the F-18 in the list of fighters the Feds built.

Then I said the Feds would not build a cheap, crappy fighter.

The F-18 is not a cheap, crappy fighter, while your proposal is for just that.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Cfant,

We know you think it stinks. You've made it abundantly apparent that you think it stinks. So, do you really need to keep on posting that it stinks?

Jeff,

Ignoring Cfant's complaints is going to get you farther than forever trying to address them; he's pulling you into a death-spiral.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 01:12 pm: Edit

Hey guys, cease fire.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 01:18 pm: Edit

Actually, they might build a cheap crappy fighter for local system defense, particularly in relatively safe areas. Why use your good F18 or F14 for such a job, when you can use a much cheaper though less effective F7, particularly when deep in the GW?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 01:29 pm: Edit

Jessica and RBN,

Thankyou.

I keep trying to reach Chris on a higher, more adult and intellectual level than he appears capable of reaching.

Pity. It could have been such a good discussion on ideas.

I will defer to your advice.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 01:31 pm: Edit

(chuckle) this really is so much fun.

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Mike Raper:

Problem with that theory is that you're already railing against established Federation Fighter history. The F18 was in greater use than any other fighter. The F7, according to the history, was a kind of fighter/shuttle "failure."

It's not likely that the Feds would have BOTH to advance the design of the F7, and then deploy it for local defense on a scale approaching that of the other fighters (F18 in the first position here, followed by the F16 and F20, followed by the F15 [the most expensive], and with some F4's still available...).

But as a prototype improvement to the F7, it's not bad...

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 01:50 pm: Edit

Richard,

True, from a historical context. SSJ3, though, is all non-historical, non-"real" stuff. So, if you wanted a place for it, this would be it. In no way would I advocate ever making them official.