Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through August 30, 2004	25		08/30 07:09am

Kenneth thanks for your comments. The only X tech on this ship is the drone control capability. The EW range was increased to range 15 from range 10.

Do you know where in the rules it is discussed that phasers on fighters are different than on ships? It is not important to the function of this unit whether it carries a Ph-G or Ph-3.

The SWAC equipment is built into this ship in a similar fashion as in the E2/3 series. This would be an exception to (J9.0)

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 10:27 am: Edit

U7.243 states it explicitly. The fiction piece Sending Gerard Home also states it.

Not to mention that the Steves have said it in a number of places.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:30 am: Edit

Kenneth,

Thanks.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile,

Any comments on this proposal?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:14 am: Edit

My feeling is that both Kenneth Jones and RBN are correct in that Ship mounted Gatlings are different than fighter mounted gatlings.

You might consider an additional type of E7 (the 'C' model?) which would have the Phaser Gatling, and change the model 'A' to a phaser 3 mount. That way, if the Steves disagree about the phaser Gatling option, they could just delete the E7-C instead of having to reword the proposal.

What is the justification for not allowing the E7 to go "wild"? the proposal includes the phrase "equipment from the E-2A was installed into the hull structure of a modular courier modified and strengthened for Federation Fleet service." Regular SWAC's have the ability to go wild...

I would suggest modifying the proposal to allow the E7 to go wild. If nothing else, this might allow a pair of E7's to use the "ECM YoYo" tactic.

IIRC, module J2 included rules for remote control fighters, and PF's have the "Death Rider" ability. Have you considered what functions might be available for a remote control E7? Given the larger facilities available onboard the E7 compared to the E2 or E3 models, the E7 might be able to support such a feature.

You might consider a statement concerning the strategic movement ability of the E7 type. something along the lines that while it could react with far greater range and endurance than fighters could, the E7 was far to valuable to deploy unescorted.

Hope this helps!

Jeff Wile

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:20 am: Edit

Jeff,

Thanks for the comments. I will work on a second draft.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 06:53 pm: Edit

Actually something I mentioned to Mike R was that X-fighters might fare better with dual X-Ph-2. They can pulse each as 2xPh-3 giving you four Ph-3 pulses, but you get 2 pulses of Ph-2 for more punch. I think the numbers worked out to inside range 3 the 4xPh-3 pulses work best, and range 3 on up shows the 2xPh-2 pulses taking the lead.

Imagine a fighter squadron (Mike R's YF-122 for example) with 2 X-Ph-2 each. That's 24 Ph-2 shots per turn! That should put fighters back on the map.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 07:57 pm: Edit

Having an XPH-2 is like one step past an X-Laser.

The fighter problem has really be solved, IMHO , by the Mega-X pack. This can serve fighters up to the X2 era.

After that we can see a new generation of fighters. X2 fighters are NOT Fighter-X and so not nessasarilly under the restriction of the Hydran Stinger-X uniqueness.

X2 fighters need NOT a XPh-2 but instead can have one of this boards greatest creations: The Ph-6.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 12:00 am: Edit

Loren

What is your mega-X pack?

RBN, I was thinking today about a PH-2 being able to fire 2x as a PH-3 as part of a F-111 mega-pack. One with a FX arc and the other with a RH arc.

Both of these ideas are interesting

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 11:28 am: Edit

JRC: Since nobody but the Hydrans have a Fighter-X if fighters are to survive into the late periods something else will be needed.

I proposed the Mega-X pack that would give standard fighters some X qualities. Namely the ability to carry and control X-drones.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 11:59 am: Edit

Loren,

The reason I asked is I have posted a couple of designs that have fighters with mega-packs. I put the X capability to control the drones in the the EW pod and called it a EWX pod. I don't want to suggesting sometime as my idea if someone else has alredy posted it. Alternately your concept may be the better way to go.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 12:04 pm: Edit

It's something already under consideration for X1R.

I felt it gives players the choice of continuing to use fighters into the X years while not changing the background.

The XP refit can be applied to carriers and the mega-X pack to the fighters.

Result: Everything the X-Attrition players want and nothing the No-X-Attrition players don't want.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 01:15 pm: Edit

Joseph,
just looking at the SSD you posted for the MCR/SWAC...

The outline is very similar to a standard Modular Courier. (not too surprising, I guess)...

As such, I would submit that it would qualify as the prototype you mentioned before.... possibly the E-5 MCR/SWAC.

Perhaps the E7A and E7B needs additional modification. Something to make the E-7A&B visually distinct from the stock MCR.

Either Modify the exterior of the E7A&B or add the Radome (like the existing E2 or E3 Swac's have.)

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 10:18 pm: Edit

Jeff,

An interesting suggestion. I will have to see what I am able to do with MS paint and which looks the best. I need to change the weapons system as well.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 08:53 am: Edit

It is really ***unfortunate*** that the MCR can't support (IMO) a phaser 2 or phaser 1 mount.

It would have made for a nice progression for the MCR/SWAC development cycle to start the E5 with a single phaser 3, the E7-A with a phaser 2, the E7-B with a phaser 1 and the E7-C with a phaser G.

Oh well, back to the drawing board, I guess!

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 10:09 am: Edit

Jeff,

It isn't that the the ship won't support a PH-2 or 1 but these phasers will blind the sensors. My idea is a new type of phaser for the E7-C, a type 7 fires one as a PH-2 or 2X as a PH-3. That would also be the new type phaser for the heavy fighters.

I have changed the E7-A&B. It has a radar dome and 2 PH-3s. With 4 spaces of drones and a 6 or 12 ADD launcher it has plenty of shelf protection capability.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 10:24 am: Edit

Joe,

A new type phaser would need, (IMO) to be separately proposed and discussed.

Making it part of the proposed MCR/SWAC would delay acceptance, or, at the worst, cause it to be denied.

I think limiting the proposal to "just" 2 phaser 3's would be the wiser approach.

(now if the type 7 phaser were approved and published at some time in the future, I could see a E7-D variant become possible...)

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 11:21 pm: Edit

We discussed this proposed SWAC in the J3 topic.

For anyone you is interested this is what the E7 SWAC looks like. I don't know were this unit fit anymore. As I don't know if the Federation could build a military variant of the MRC. I am not able to solve the conundrum of what technology is allowed when on what.

The other piece is what ship would carry the E7 and how, mech-link or internal mech-link bay?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 11:23 pm: Edit

Forgot the link
http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x1/joecarlson/E7%20SWAC_V2.GIF