I agree that stingers are one of the better DF fighters in this situation, one could even argue they do well in the role. I think we're more discussing a level of degree than anything else.

To a large extent, it comes down to the number of stingers. the Hydran goes with a fusion fleet, they'll have plenty of fighters, but I've usually seen HB fleets against ISC and they're often a bit short on the fighters (allowing multiple torps per fighter).

When packed, even 3 points is too close to crippled for comfort (and there is always the uncertainty of which fighters the torps are launched at--2 on one fighter is still a kill after each is hit by a gat). Also remeber that sabots do extend the range of the torps.

Even pre-sabot, a perfectly timed launch will force the stingers to deal with strength 15 torps (ie they'll meet the stinger after 10 moves the same impulse it reaches range 10 to fire, this does require the ISC gun line to slip out a bit after launching). Sabot makes this much easier, but I admit I haven't played this matchup since sabot came out (so I can't say how much easier).

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 08:15 pm: Edit

If the plasmas are timed to reach the fighters once they reach range 10 to the mainline, the fighters can juke (slip out and back in, maybe a couple times) a bit to have them reach the plasmas after they've degraded down a bit further. The Stingers can postpone the engagement a bit, while the plasmas can't.

Alternatively, if the gunline has invested enough plasma into the Stingers, they can just turn off, still outside effective phaser range from the gunline and let the plasmas run out, making the gunline nearly impotent. IF the pl

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 09:10 pm: Edit

The ZDF/ZDG, I'll admit, is not the best fighter for fighting the ISC gunline. Though this would be the time it would be available perhaps it would be it's downfall until the Andros come along, then it get a comeback. So, it could be a fighter designed in the late GW but can't be implemented because of galactic circomstances. It sees minor production during the ISC but fails and production is halted. Then around the time when the galactics start making a comeback against the Andros the design is reviewed and implemented.

There could be a phaser version proposed to battle the ISC but never came to fruition. A ZPG.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 10:46 am: Edit

David Kass;

I agree that "something" has to be the weakest fighter and under current rules that seems to be disruptor-armed fighters generally. But the problem as I see it is: why then do the Klingons/Kzinti deploy disruptor-armed single-space fighters at all? The Tholians don't really have any alternatives except for phaser-only fighters, and the disruptor-armed fast heavy fighters are decent units. But the ZY-C and TADS-C are so superior to the ZD and DAS (especially in the fast drones/warp boost packs/megafighter era) that except for the occasional odd-ball situation, deploying the disruptor-armed single-space fighters makes no sense. But the standard deployment for a C8V is still 18 ZY and 6 ZD (ignoring for purposes of this discussion the EW fighters). And I believe the Kzinti deploy fighters on their CVA the same way. Deployments of 24 ZY or TADS would make more sense. An upgraded ZD or DAS (particularly bringing the speed up to equal advanced fighters) would explain why disruptor-armed fighters are still deployed on the heavy carriers.

Regarding disruptor-armed fighters versus the ISC: the problem I see here is that I don't believe that the only combats that take place during the Pacification are ISC versus somebody else. The Lyrans still hate the Kzinti. The Klingons still hate the Tholians. The Romulans still believe they will ultimately conquer the galaxy. The ISC may be the main concern for these races at at the moment and thus will probably be the single strongest driver in the development of new technology and weapons. But the ISC won't be the only driver. In the backs of their minds, the Feds still worry about the Klingons. Lyrans still worry about the Kzinti. And so on.

As I see it, either the Klingons and Kzinti would develop improved ZD and DAS fighters, or those fighters would eventually be phased out completely.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 08:19 pm: Edit

Alan, please look at (R3.28) in module J1, the C8V standard deployment did not include Z-D starting Y177 (introduction of the Z-Y) and did not even include Z-P starting Y183 (deployment of the Z-YC). So the Klingons agree with you on the Z-D not being worth putting on the C8V. Furthermore, the first note indicates the Z-D/P were sometimes replaced with superiority (aka drone) fighters even before these dates.

As near as I can tell, the Z-D (and Z-P) was mostly phased out when the drone fighters (in the form of the Z-Y/C) outclassed them.

The Kzinti do formally keep the half squadron of DAS on their CVA throughout. The player can always use (J4.8933) to replace them with drone fighters, so one would presume that while the formal CVA compliment included the 6 DAS, they sometimes/often were replaced with 6 TADS(-C).

For the Kzinti, it also makes more sense to carry a few disruptor armed fighters, even if they are weak. The fleet with the CVA will have lots of drone launch capability (its a Kzinti fleet!), so the loss of drones from 6 fighters won't be a big deal, but there are some missions where the disruptor armed fighters come in handy.

Note that either race also has the possibilty of replacing the half squadron of disruptor fighters (and the half squadron of drone fighters) with a squadron of heavy fighters...

As near as I can tell, apart from Civil wars the ISC do actually manage to force all the races apart and prevent fighting among the various races--they occupy all the former neutral zones (see the proposed ISC F&E scenarios) So the ISC are really the only major opponent for most races during this time (the only others are really Orions and Adromedans).

Loren, I don't see disruptor armed fighters as being any better against Andros than drone fighters. My experience is somewhat limited, but I feel that while drone fighers aren't great, they're better than distruptor fighters. Get enough fast drones in flight (with extended range) in enough different places and the Andros run out of locations to displace to and start to have to spend firepower killing them with phasers. Drones are also very good against SATB and temporal elevators (the SATB will run out of T-bombs before the carrier runs out of drones).

So in conclusion, I still don't see any reason anyone would develop better disruptors. Remember they have to compete not just against drone fighters, but against PFs as well.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 01:10 am: Edit

The heavy fighter issue David mentions is important. For instance with the Federation, I am sure that once the A-20F is introduced, no CVA would ever use A-10s again. They would just do the allowed substitution and use the much faster A-20Fs instead. (This is probably why there is no such thing as an A-10F.)

Likewise, the Kzintis and Klingons are both free to do the same. In their cases, they get to replace 6 disruptor fighters and 6 drone fighters with their heavy fighters.

By Don Sample (Kailae) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Here's the question of interest - why is the speed of the direct fire fighters so much lower than the other types?

By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Because direct fire fighters have to divert some of the power of their engines to hold the weapon charge?

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit

I'd swap Z-D and DAS for half a heavy fighter in a heartbeat. Not so the A10. It's as tough as a heavy fighter, why take half as many?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 05:04 pm: Edit

The biggest reason is because at speed 10 (or 20), the A-10 isn't getting into (or possibly even close) to the fray. The A-20F's speed is just too valuable to pass up.

Also, the A-20 has lots of other tricks, that an A-10 just can't do. Like better fire control, more drones, integral ADD, and a couple of other things.

By Don Sample (Kailae) on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 01:13 am: Edit

I guess I should have stated in my previous post "why do all other direct fire fighters except hydrans go so slow"?

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 01:46 am: Edit

The Tholian spider-2 is relatively fast (speed 14 in Y172) which only the Fed F-14 and F-15 outmatch. For the other disruptor races, the heavy weapon fighter seems to be an overpriced unit with limited utility. Faster DF fighters would probably require adding the first split fighter BPVs since their cost will exceed their combat value.

As to what prompted the Klingons and Kzinti to mount disruptors on slower yet more fragile fighters, your guess is as good as any. I imagine the disruptor mounting ate into the engine compartment space.

By Don Sample (Kailae) on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 01:54 pm: Edit

That's what I was thinking of. The A-10 makes some kind of sense, as it has a lot of damage points. But what's the deal with the Z-D and DAS?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 10:04 am: Edit

Mike West posted "I do think a CL article that covers Federation fighter development would be an interesting read, but would also be hard to write."

I'd like to endorse the Idea.

to give an example of such "Foot Note" designs that would eventually be a part of such a Captains Log article, Here is:

Proposed: Federation F-1 Fury fighter.

Type: F-1
Speed: 8
Phaser: 1xP3FA
Drones: 2xI
Damage:8
Special: No Drone Control
BPV:5
year:162
DFR:2

Suggested Background:

The Kzinti's introduced the AS fighting shuttle into service in year 161. While not a superior fighter in its own right, the AS allowed those ships so equipped to increase the per turn drone launch rate thru the "manned recoverable scatter pack".

The Federation, faced with the possibility of a significant improvement in the combat ability of the Kzinti Fleet (bearing in mind that the Federation and the Kzinti Hegemony have fought each other in the past) rushed the F-1A into development as a response.

The same factors that limited the Kzinti AS effectiveness were noted in the F-1 Fury.

Note that with the exception of drone control limits, the F-1 is virtually identical to the F8.

By Clark Chism (Cchism) on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 08:11 pm: Edit

A Federation Fighter History would be great! I like Fed Fighters.

By Clark Chism (Cchism) on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 11:07 pm: Edit

This is posted in another post but its more relevant here.

Fed QA-13 Fighter:
Photon Torpedo FA
Speed 12
1 FA P-3
1 Chaff Pack
9 Damage Spaces
7 Crippled Rating
Remote Control

*Note:* Making it R/C is Loren Knights Idea

In Yxxx Starfleet decided that it needed a way to get large amounts of Photons in to an enemy very cheaply. They decided that a Remote Control Fighter would work best. Parts based loosely on the A-10 and F-18 fighters but similar to neither of them.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 03:18 am: Edit

The A-10 is very close to that already, and can be remote controlled if desired.

By Karl Anthony Vogelheim (Prmetime) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 01:13 pm: Edit

I have finaly slogged through most of this posting ( I just couldn't do it all) so I have a couple of ideas or comments. If I have missed something, the fault is entirely mine.

The ASM would make the Federation A6 a far more effective attack ship. Especially after CL29 with the faster versions of the A6 and using them to defend a planet. Is this weapon still being considered?

A request for SVC, if J3 is ever done, could you include the Hydran, Klingon, and Fed/Cygnan fighters from the various CLs in the module? That way they will be in on place. and those that didn't purchase the CLs will have access to them.

While this hardly has to be brought up, for those of you who want to write a fighter article, do it. I have had two succeed when I didn't think either one would ever see the light of day. My only suggestion is to make the unit somewhat unique either through design or background. That gives it more chance to be accepted.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:46 pm: Edit

In the F&E area some comments I made lead me to these proposals.

A) A new rule allowing 50% of shuttles destroyed along with a detroyed shuttle box to be recovered. You cannot recover 1/2 a shuttle so you would have to have at least two. Three destroyed would only net you one shuttle. Would cost repair points from the general pool.

B) Spare Shuttles are destroyed along with Excess Damage points. One Spare per excess damage point hit. Which shuttle and type is up to the owning player.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Loren. B) makes some sense, though has dangerous off-shoots (drones are stored in the same manner, for example). A) doesn't make sense to me since, theoritically, by your rule, a SP that explodes due to chain reaction could still be 50% recovered.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Let's exclude drone armed shuttles that explode.

I'm talking about shuttles that are destroyed by damage to the shuttlebay.

Units that explode in chainreactions (i.e. ones that cause further damage) are certainly not recoverable.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 05:53 am: Edit

Question--
Every module generally tries to have its own "McGuffin", a small number of "anchor" systems or ships that most races can use, and thus can be used as the main selling point-- I.E., R9 had war dns and XDNLs, J2 had drogues, Type H's, etc--
What would J3 have? I'm not referring to every little fighter, but can we arrive at a few concepts taht might reasonably grab the average player and say: You should buy this? Note with R9, we could probably include one "impossible" concept in it, as the XDNL's are impossible to build.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 09:20 am: Edit

That's a toughie; so much has already been done with fighters, it's difficult to come up with something that would be (1) near-universal, (2) widely popular, and (3) not game-breaking.

An obvious item would be some manner of small X-carrier and X-fighters (such as the Stinger-X) for everyone, but even if such an idea were acceptable, it would belong in a new X-module, not in J3.

There's no need for more non-X carriers; heck, we're already soggy with carrier types, to the point that one starts to wonder if anything but carriers and escorts were flying around.

Bits and pieces of stuff for various races could be done -- conjectural Gorn and Lyran designs that never went into production, some oddball designs (like my Lyran "twin-fighter" thing), maybe a WYN production fighter (heck, they designed and built their own PFs), developmental fighters (such as those presented for the Hydrans and Klingons in various Captain's Logs), etc. -- but one big sweeping cross-racial thing? I'm having trouble of thinking of a base that isn't yet coverred. All I can think of are "stealth fighters", perhaps as a slightly toned-down, very late-Ydate reworking of the F-22 and F-122 from Star Fleet Times #22; it's a different advanced developmental path from X-fighters, and might work as the "McGuffin."

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 09:22 am: Edit

Charles Gray:

Among many ideas posted when SVC started this topic, was this item:

_______________________________________________

Scout escorts proposed by John Wyszynski. This would be a cheap way to get more sensors into a fleet without taking up scout slots, and could serve as the eyes and ears of a carrier group.

We considered the "scout escorts" in J2 and decided against them. Might we reconsider in J3? Only time will tell.

_______________________________________________


I may have missed it, but I don't beleive this idea was discussed:

is there merit in giving the carriers escorts a scout channel(s)?

and while we are discussing it, is it time to review carrier doctrin in the Andromedan period? I mean, the doctrine was established before Interceptors, bombers, PF's andthe ISC / Andromedan invasion...

Just suggesting that the doctrine may need to be "tweeked" a little in response to new technology... and one way to do that would be by applying new refits to the carrier forces.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 10:19 am: Edit

"is there merit in giving the carriers escorts a scout channel(s)?"

My vote: NO.

That implies too many things for F&E.


Garth L. Getgen